PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Wednesday 19 June

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Community Violence

Martin Smyth: What his assessment is of the levels of community violence throughout Belfast in the last two months.

John Reid: The recent violence committed by both sides of the community throughout Belfast is inexcusable. It serves no purpose other than to keep local communities in a never-ending cycle of sectarian hostility. It is time, quite simply, to stop. Violence will breed further violence, and bitterness will lead to further bitterness. Only dialogue will solve our problems.

Martin Smyth: We thought that dialogue was solving the problems. Does the Secretary of State agree that the violence has been planned for some time and is spreading through north, south, east and west Belfast? Is it not time to stop talking about the instigating and orchestrating, and to deal instead with the reality? Those who have benefited from the agreement are in government, but they have not fulfilled the terms of that agreement. Is it not about time that sanctions were applied against them?

John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is little use in talking about who instigated the violence, because it is common currency in Northern Ireland for one side continually to blame the other. What is true is that intelligence, evidence and information exists to show that all paramilitaries have been involved in orchestrating or organising such violence at various stages.
	As I have said, violence from both communities is to be utterly condemned. I am keeping all ceasefires under close review, but let us be clear: ceasefires, however effectively they are maintained, will not themselves be sufficient to maintain confidence in the political process. The shadow of paramilitaries and paramilitarism must be fully and finally lifted. There is no halfway house. The destination must be clear, the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means must be assured, and the progress towards that end must be continual.

Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the upsurge in sectarian violence on the streets of Belfast in particular is being initiated by, or manipulated by, paramilitaries both loyalist and republican? He says, as he has said many times, that there is no halfway house between the bullet and the ballot box, but such a halfway house has existed in Northern Ireland for some considerable time. When will circumstances dictate that paramilitaries will be fingered and announced as perpetrators of orchestrated and organised paramilitary violence who manipulate the political process?

John Reid: First, to put this in context, without being complacent we should not forget that there has been movement away from the violence that we experienced previously. Some 50 people have been killed in the past three and a half years, and although each one of those deaths is tragic, we should remember that in the three and a half years before the ceasefire, seven times as many people were killed. Although much remains to be done, we should not take the view that no progress has been made. Nevertheless, continuing activity and violence is unacceptable and will be opposed by all means within the power of the state, not least through the Police Service itself.
	The aspect of such violence that I find particularly detestable and distasteful is the misuse and abuse of children. Not only are they the victims of personal attacks or attacks on schools; they are also being permitted, or encouraged, to go on to the streets of Northern Ireland, putting themselves and others at risk. This is supposed to be the generation of hope. I appeal to every parent in Northern Ireland to make sure that their children are not involved, because they will simply inflict on the next generation the same misery that was inflicted on the previous one.

Peter Robinson: I concur with the Secretary of State's condemnation of the recent terrorism and violence in Belfast, and with the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). However, will the Secretary of State try to understand the difficulty that many people in Northern Ireland have in understanding his criterion in judging whether a ceasefire has been breached? They remember the level of toleration that he showed for the Ulster Defence Association, and they note that since the Provisional IRA declared its so-called ceasefire, it has murdered more than a dozen people and shot more than 160, been involved in paramilitary beatings of more than 250 people, been found guilty of running guns from Florida, been involved in training terrorists in Colombia, and has shot five of my constituents in the past fortnight. Despite that, the Secretary of State is still reviewing the Provisional IRA's ceasefire.

John Reid: If I were to base my judgments on every assertion made by the hon. Gentleman, they might be open to more question than basing them on the judgment of the security forces and advisers who advise me on those matters. As the acting Chief Constable has made plain recently, in his view there is no imminent threat to the ceasefire. However, that is not the point. The point is that the ceasefire is not in itself sufficient even if, in the round, it is in place. If it is alleged that some of the paramilitaries are involved not only in localised violence but in preparations for a terrorist war after a ceasefire, the political confidence in the process cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is incumbent on everyone who is committed to the process to ensure that no such allegations can be shown to be founded.

Stephen Pound: The Secretary of State's powerful words in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) will be supported by all people of good will, but I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether those who criticise the Good Friday agreement have presented to him any viable and sustainable alternative to the peace process.

John Reid: I can answer my hon. Friend simply and straightly—no, they have not. That is not only of little use to me, or anyone who wants to see the problems in Northern Ireland resolved, but it perpetrates the illusion on the people of Northern Ireland that some alternative or third way—if I may use that expression—exists to the course on which we have embarked and the terrible and tragic course that was followed for decades. It certainly has not been brought to my attention by anyone in general, or in particular by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that a viable and realistic alternative exists.

Patsy Calton: In view of the attack on another Alliance councillor's home last night after he had sought the removal of paramilitary murals in his area, when will the police make arrests for painting such murals and what action is being taken to curb the underlying causes of the violence we see daily in Northern Ireland?

John Reid: Those are matters for the police in terms of operational activity. Nevertheless, I utterly condemn and deplore any attacks on people, especially elected representatives, on the basis that others disagree with their views. That is what gave us the tragedy of Northern Ireland. The people who use such violence use fear to try to shut others up, but they themselves are in the grip of a fear of the power of politics and democracy. They see their own power to impose their will on the people of Northern Ireland slipping away as the peace process progresses.

Quentin Davies: At the last Northern Ireland questions, I put to the Secretary of State a catalogue of evidenced cases of breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement by Sinn Fein-IRA and asked him what he proposed to do about it. The answer was that he proposed to do nothing at all. Apart from the usual ponderous phrases and evasiveness, the answer was zero. Now the situation is much more serious. We see vicious rioting from both communities, the shooting of civilians and policemen, and the attempted murder by the IRA of a Catholic policeman, from which the chairman of Sinn Fein pointedly refuses to dissociate himself. Is it still the Secretary of State's policy to do absolutely nothing?

John Reid: I repeat the words of the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, who said that when there are hotheads on the streets, it is helpful to have cool heads in Chambers such as this. It is not the case that intelligence has informed me that there was an attempted murder of a young policeman by the IRA. I have been informed that it was dissident republicans. [Interruption.] It may make no difference to Democratic Unionist Members who commits a crime, as their consistent position is to blame everything that happens on one section of the community. That is precisely part of the problem in Northern Ireland.
	It is not the case either that evidence or information has been given to me as to who was firing the shots. Nevertheless, the point is that paramilitary involvement in civil disorder or in preparation for a terrorist campaign or the resumption of a war can do nothing but undermine confidence in the peace process. I have therefore made it absolutely plain that ceasefires are not sufficient, even if they are maintained in the round. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that at least.

Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State can always argue about who was responsible for the attempted murder of the Catholic policeman in Ballymena, but he cannot get away from the fact that the chairman of Sinn Fein, when pressed many times by John Humphrys on Sunday, pointedly declined to dissociate himself from it. So Sinn Fein is endorsing this kind of activity: is not that absolutely clear? Is not it an inescapable fact? Is not it something that the right hon. Gentleman should respond to?
	Given that the Secretary of State seems completely at a loss, may I make one or two suggestions? Might not he put into suspense the additional concessions, going beyond Belfast, that he has promised to Sinn Fein-IRA? Might not he consider also withdrawing Sinn Fein's special status in this House? That would at least demonstrate that the Government have the backbone to withdraw concessions when that is called for, as well as making them.

John Reid: If the problems of Northern Ireland could be solved by shouting, they would have been solved a long time ago.
	I must correct the hon. Gentleman: according to my reading of the transcript of the interview, the chairman of Sinn Fein did not fail to dissociate himself from the attempted murder. He failed to condemn it. [Interruption.] It is important to get our facts straight in connection with such important matters of life and death. I am not only disappointed, but I deplore the failure of anyone to condemn the cowardly and murderous attempt on the life of a young Catholic recruit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. First, because it is an act of murder, and secondly because people like that young recruit are attempting to bring about a new cross-community support for policing in Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the peace process.
	I say again to members of every political party in Northern Ireland that it is their duty and responsibility, as we bring in a new police service, to give full support to that and to condemn those who are attempting to murder people acting in the best interests of the public of Northern Ireland.

John Hume: Leaving aside the two areas in which there has been serious sectarian activity, does the Secretary of State agree that in the rest of Northern Ireland there is massive support on the streets for the peace process? Does he agree that the atmosphere in those streets has been transformed, and that the peace process has the substantial support of both sections of our community?
	Secondly, is he aware that there is an opinion abroad that the people behind the stirring up of sectarianism want to ensure that law and order is not restored because they are engaged in the mafia drugs trade? Is there any intelligence information to support that opinion?

John Reid: First, we must all recognise that paramilitaries of all persuasions are involved in this. Secondly, we must recognise that at least one group of those paramilitaries is in government, through the political representatives of the republican movement. That means that there is a higher obligation on them to exhibit that they are committed to exclusively democratic means.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is right to suggest that there may be an attempt to defy the imposition of any law and order for criminal purposes, but there may well be other motives. However, we must also remember that in certain areas, although such things may be contributory factors, there have been riots going on in successive years for almost two centuries. It is very difficult to pin down one particular reason.
	However, whatever the reasons, violence will only breed more violence and bitterness will only breed more bitterness. All sides should think very carefully and withdraw themselves from a situation of continual confrontation. It can only bring more misery.

Michael Mates: I certainly would not accuse the Secretary of State of complacency, but does he not realise that responding to the points of the four Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, who are from all points of the political compass, by simply saying that we need more dialogue is taking us round in circles? The right hon. Gentleman—perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly—rejected the allegations of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but he also said that he had hard intelligence that paramilitary violence was being carefully organised by the paramilitary groups. At what stage will he do more than seek further dialogue?

John Reid: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am well aware of the strength of opinion on this matter, not least because of the representations of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, who has made his views known to me in no uncertain terms. However, it is wrong to think that we are saying only that we need more dialogue. We are, of course, doing everything possible in terms of security, argument and politics to make it plain that a ceasefire is not enough if activity is going on that would still leave a ceasefire in place but give a distinct impression that preparations were being made for a breach of that ceasefire and that it was purely tactical. We are doing everything possible and, more than anything, we do not underestimate the seriousness of this or of the views of Northern Ireland Members.

Devolved Institutions

Andy King: If he will make a statement on the operation over the past 12 months of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.

Des Browne: The past 12 months have seen an increase in the stability of the devolved institutions, all of which are now operating fully. We will continue to work closely with those involved to ensure that devolution delivers the best results possible for the people of Northern Ireland.

Andy King: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back just a few short years to when there was stalemate in the political process in Northern Ireland and no dialogue between parties and communities? Does he, unlike Opposition Members, agree with me that we have come a long way in two short years and that it is vital that the political devolved institutions in Northern Ireland succeed in order to give the people of Northern Ireland a future in which they can live in peace and be free from terror?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the progress that has been made. I need remind nobody in the House of my personal commitment to devolution, and the Government's record in this area stands for itself. We will do everything in our power to sustain devolution because it is what the parties and people of Northern Ireland want and it is delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is delivering, in particular, significant reform and additional investment in jobs and services and in public administration. [Interruption.] Although it is not easy, in devolved terms, to do that in Scotland or Wales, it is a sign of the maturity of the politics of Northern Ireland that these questions are being faced up to by local politicians. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call on the House to come to order.

David Trimble: We will, of course, do what we can in the devolved Administration to make progress. We acknowledge in particular the assistance from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to our reinvestment and reform initiative. None the less, does the Minister not realise that it will not be possible to sustain the institutions without popular confidence, and that that popular confidence is at a low ebb? The main reason for that is the popular belief, reinforced by action after action by the Government, that no matter how badly republicans behave, the Government will do nothing to constrain them and that they have, literally, allowed them to get away with murder.

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman properly reminds the House of the special support that has been given to devolution in Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the form of the economic package and I do not propose to go through the details. He also makes the very good point that devolution anywhere in the United Kingdom can be sustained only as long as it maintains the confidence of the people. Local politics and devolution are under strain in Northern Ireland for the very reasons that he identified. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has addressed the problems in the way that he has. We recognise that if organisations continue to give that impression to the people of Northern Ireland, it will undermine confidence in politics, which is unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend said, we all need to do everything in our power to see the shadow of paramilitarism lifted from the people of Northern Ireland.

Seamus Mallon: Does the Minister agree that it would be a fundamental error to judge the success of the institutions in terms of either sectarian violence or the paramilitary stirring up of violence? Does he further agree that all the institutions that were created under the Good Friday agreement are working well and that for people in Northern Ireland—be it in the Short Strand, north Belfast, south Armagh or anywhere else—the choice is between those institutions and the sectarianism and violence that the thugs are bringing to us on our streets? I believe that the Secretary of State, the Minister and everyone here should support those institutions so that they can provide the only alternative to the men behind the masks.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the only way forward for the people of Northern Ireland is in the context of the agreement and the institutions that flow from it—not only the institutions of devolution, but the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Policing Board, all of which have shown local people that working together can solve local problems. The only test that I apply to the institutions of devolution is whether local people are taking decisions about improving lives locally. In Northern Ireland, they are doing so. The system may not be working perfectly, but it would have seemed astonishing five years ago that it should work as it has—or at all. Northern Ireland people can be proud of the progress that they have made. They are an example to the world of civilised conflict resolution.

Crispin Blunt: In the Government's view, is it acceptable that the Executive in Northern Ireland should contain members of a party that is not only hostile to the police but directly responsible for creating a climate in the republican community that has directly led to the attempted murder of a Catholic recruit to the police—an attempted murder that the chairman of Sinn Fein has singularly failed to condemn?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has already been made today. While it may be clear to him who was responsible for, or started, individual incidents, to those of us who have ministerial responsibility in Northern Ireland it is far from clear who is responsible, from the information that we get. What is clear—I admit this to the hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did—is that once they started, paramilitaries on both sides were involved. I unequivocally deplore and condemn that behaviour, as does my right hon. Friend, and I call on all community leaders, including the people who lead those organisations, to work for its cessation.

Parade Season

Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on the maintenance of order during the parade season.

Jane Kennedy: Approximately 3,300 parades were held in 2001 and the vast majority passed off peacefully with only minor incidents occurring at a small number. We hope that that trend continues throughout the marching season. In the event of public disorder, this year as every year, the security forces have appropriate contingency measures in place to ensure that the determinations of the Parades Commission are upheld.

Helen Jackson: Is it not the case that in the past few weeks in this country there have been not thousands or hundreds but millions of people on the streets parading and celebrating the Queen's golden jubilee and the World Cup football results in Dublin and England? Is it not the case, therefore, that there is no need for a parade or street celebration to disintegrate into sectarianism or violence? Does the Minister agree that the essential components are good planning and organisation and consultation?

Jane Kennedy: I could just say yes, but my hon. Friend mentioned football, so may I take this opportunity to say how delighted I am that two football teams from the British Isles are doing well in the World cup? As for the rest of her question, my answer is yes.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Taylor: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 June.

Tony Blair: This morning—I suspect, in common with millions of others—I watched the England match, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to send our congratulations to the English team on reaching the next stage of the finals. Indeed, my next meeting was with the Prime Minister of Denmark—to discuss the next match, of course. This evening, I shall meet the President of Nigeria—of course, to discuss the last match. In addition, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

David Taylor: Given that German jobless figures are soaring to 4 million and French voters are veering sharply to the right, should not my right hon. Friend be discouraging some of his Ministers from their over- zealous promotion of the euro, which is partly responsible? Are not the Chancellor, as ever, and Mr. Rupert Murdoch, for once, absolutely right to urge great British caution towards that fundamentally flawed folly?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for that opening question after the recess. No, I believe that we should stick to the economic tests. If they are passed, we should put the issue to the British people in a referendum. I have to say that I believe that the European economy—after all, its interest rate is 1 per cent. lower than ours—has created 5 million jobs in the past few years, and many countries in Europe are now joined in a single currency area. I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the European Union; I believe that it is in this country's interests to be a member of the EU, to make our weight felt in the EU and, should the economic tests be met, to be part of the single currency.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in congratulating the England team? Like him and many others, I watched the match, but I did not watch it with him, which is probably a blessing for my side. May I suggest, however, that of all the people whom he is planning to advise and discuss in the next 20 minutes, given his record, he does not give advice to Sven-Goran Eriksson on who to pick for the next game?
	Will the Prime Minister give a personal apology to Pam Warren and other survivors of the Paddington rail crash for his attempt to discredit them?

Tony Blair: I endorse entirely what the Department for Transport said last week about that. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says because there was never any attempt to discredit Pam Warren or anyone else. However, I stand entirely by the apology given by the Department for Transport at the time.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is very careful with his words, but what he has said is very clear. [Interruption.] Oh no, he is very careful with his words because, when referring to the same set of words used before, Pam Warren said that they were totally inadequate. She went on to say that the actions of his Government were
	"very nasty and spiteful, and if anyone is going to apologise it has to be Tony Blair."
	So, I repeat, will he now give Mrs. Warren and the other survivors the apology that they deserve?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand why Pam Warren said that, because she had been told that there had been an attempt to find out or dig up dirt, as it was said, on her. That is simply not the case. Indeed, no inquiry was ever made about Pam Warren, but the Department of Transport said at the time—I endorse this and concur with it entirely—that it apologised for any distress caused to Pam Warren by a story about her that was actually false.

Iain Duncan Smith: Weasel words. This is the same man who promised to bring in a new politics of honesty and trust, yet when any member of the public—Rose Addis, Pam Warren or anyone else—criticises the Prime Minister, his Government throw the weight of their machine at investigating their private lives and crushing them. I give him one last chance. He has the opportunity to get up and apologise now, without equivocation and without qualification, to Pam Warren for trying to discredit her.

Tony Blair: First, in respect of Rose Addis, let us be clear. The hospital concerned asked the right hon. Gentleman to apologise for saying that the treatment given to her was wrong. There was never an attempt to discredit her; that is quite wrong. We are entitled, in circumstances in which the hospital disputed the complaint, to make that dispute clear. Secondly, in respect of Pam Warren, the truth is—if we want the truth—that there was never an e-mail attempting to dig dirt on her. If the right hon. Gentleman has such an e-mail, he can now produce it.

Kate Hoey: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the introduction of the softly, softly approach to cannabis in my constituency and the borough of Lambeth, there are more drug dealers on the streets than ever, many young children are going to school in the morning zonked out on a very hard kind of cannabis, and more and more residents are being harassed and almost attacked by drug dealers on their way home from work? That approach has released 1.8 extra police officers. Will the Prime Minister do something about cleaning up these gangs of criminals and stick up for decent law-abiding citizens and residents who are fed up with being experimented on?

Tony Blair: I would point out to my hon. Friend that serious crime has fallen in Lambeth. It is important, however, to give careful consideration to the results of the experiment that was carried out. If we do not do so, and if we had refused to carry out such an experiment, even though the police and others locally were saying that it was sensible to do so, we would have been criticised the other way. We need to consider carefully the results of the experiment.
	In relation to street crime in London, however, I know that my hon. Friend will support the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will allow us to get at the assets of drug dealers—I am afraid that that legislation is opposed by the Conservative party—and the measures on street crime, particularly restrictions on bail for persistent offenders, which we believe will have a serious impact on cutting street crime. She will know from the latest figures produced by the Metropolitan police that that measure is having that effect.

Charles Kennedy: When the Prime Minister became aware that a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence had recently taken up a private sector post with a commercial lobbying company with defence clients on its books, was he satisfied that the spirit and the substance of the rules governing such transfers had been met?

Tony Blair: Yes, I was. The Ministry of Defence has carried out the relevant processes which apply to the whole of Government. The permanent secretary certified the arrangement, and it was made in consultation with the Cabinet Office in the normal way.

Charles Kennedy: In terms of public perception, does the Prime Minister not think that special advisers should be subject to exactly the same rules as senior civil servants? For many people, this case, and the Government explanations attached to it, stretch credulity. When will the Prime Minister take further action to clean up this state of affairs?

Tony Blair: I disagree, I am afraid, that action is necessary to clean it up. The permanent secretary in the Ministry of Defence applied the rules in the normal way, and the Cabinet Office was consulted in the normal way. That is the right and proper way to do it, and that is precisely the system that has been used for many years. Rather than dealing with perception—the right hon. Gentleman's question and that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) were about the perception that they want to create—is it not about time that we dealt with the reality? The reality is that special advisers, whether for Labour or Conservative Governments, do a perfectly good job. I fully support the special adviser system and it would be deeply unfortunate if we got rid of it.

Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that one insurance company has chosen to withdraw cover from areas that are judged a flood risk? People in much of my constituency in the Trent, Derwent and Dove valleys rely heavily on the insurance industry and on flood protection to ensure that they can live a normal life. Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the need for additional spending on this matter in the spending review?

Tony Blair: We are spending substantial additional sums of money—running into many millions of pounds—on flood defences. Of course, I shall look into the particular point that my hon. Friend raises. It is a problem that we need to tackle with the insurance companies to try to ensure that everybody who can possibly get insurance gets it. I am afraid that one of the things that we know from the work that has been carried out and from the analysis of the changing nature of the climate is that these problems may well recur.

Peter Tapsell: If the Prime Minister recommends to the British people that they should abandon the pound sterling in a referendum and they reject his advice, will he resign?

Tony Blair: I think that we should wait until we get to the referendum and then wait for the result.

Ross Cranston: My right hon. Friend will recall that three years ago, the health White Paper, "Saving Lives"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ross Cranston: That White Paper announced a plan for an alcohol strategy. Since that time, the charity Alcohol Concern has estimated that there have been about 2 million serious incidents of violence around pubs, 130,000 deaths from excessive alcohol consumption and numerous incidents of domestic violence. Will my right hon. Friend crank the machinery so that we have an alcohol strategy in place?

Tony Blair: We will be investing somewhere in the region of £30 million in action against under-age drinking in particular, which is a serious problem. I point out too—it is important that the public understand this—that the police and local authorities now have two very specific powers to deal with this issue. First, they can seize alcohol from those who cause a nuisance in public places and, secondly—this is particularly important—the police will now be given the power to close licensed premises when there is a likelihood of trouble and they can arrest those who do not allow the alcohol to be seized when asked to do so. Those powers will give us considerable leverage on a problem that I know causes disturbances in many city centres in many parts of the country.

Anthony Steen: In view of the close friendship between the United States and the United Kingdom, is the Prime Minister aware that the talks aimed at liberalising transatlantic services from Heathrow have stalled twice? Intense pressure has been put on No. 10 officials by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic because they do not want more competition. Bearing in mind the fact that he believes in open skies, will he put his seal of approval to an open skies policy across the Atlantic from Heathrow? Will he kick-start the talks?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are keen to liberalise the US-UK air services agreement. That is important, but it must be done on terms that are fair. The competition must be fair, otherwise we will put the jobs of thousands of British employees at risk. I am, in principle, very anxious to restart this process, but it must be on the right terms. At present, those terms are not right, but we are in intensive discussions with the American Administration to try to get the process going again.

Stephen Pound: It is said that we are all Thatcherites now. May I, as a Bevanite who aspires to be a Blairite, tell my right hon. Friend that there are those of us who would rather undergo root canal surgery without anaesthetic, be cast away on a desert island with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—with no ear plugs—or even be entertained to a full and frank discussion in the Whips Office, than accept such a description? May I ask the Prime Minister for his view?

Tony Blair: Yes. I am delighted that we have moved this country away from Thatcherism. The problem with Thatcherism is that it took no account of social division; it grossly underinvested in our public services; it did not care about unemployment; and it isolated this country in Europe. That is precisely why I am delighted that we have a new Labour Government today to put the situation right.

Roy Beggs: The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic recently stated that the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives must take place within a year and that the IRA must be disbanded. When will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have the courage to set and achieve the same objectives?

Tony Blair: First, we have to make sure that no level of paramilitary activity is considered acceptable, because no level of paramilitary activity is acceptable. I can go further and say specifically that by that I mean not the procurement of weapons, not the targeting of people and not the so-called punishment beatings that are actually acts of criminal violence. The absence of attacks on security personnel or bombing campaigns is not enough. A temporary or tactical ceasefire is not enough. If people want the process to survive, they have to make the democratic choice in absolute and not partial terms. The existence of any paramilitary activity is inconsistent with that.
	I also believe, however, that the peace process offers us the best chance of achieving that aim. Even though I know that it is under strain, for the reasons implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, it is precisely because people have got to make that democratic choice that there cannot be a halfway house. If we look over the past few years and at Northern Ireland as a whole, the vast majority of people have benefited from the peace process, the economy has benefited and security has benefited. We now have to work together to ensure that the aim that both the Taoiseach and I want to see is achieved.

Ronnie Campbell: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to eradicate pensioner poverty, pensions should be linked to earnings?

Tony Blair: I do not, for the reasons that we have given many times. The best way to eradicate pensioner poverty is to do what we are trying to do. In particular, the minimum income guarantee is increasing pensioners' incomes far and above the rises that would result from a link to earnings. Universal elements, such as the winter fuel allowance, the free television licence for the over-75s and the new pension credit when it comes into effect, will help people on lower incomes far more than if we simply linked their pensions to earnings.
	The trouble is that if we link the basic state pension to earnings, we will never get enough resources from Government to give such a lift to the basic state pension as it attempts to cure pensioner poverty. We have therefore to distinguish between different groups of pensioners. Some are relatively well off, some are very poor. It is the right duty for this Government, with our principles, to help the poorest most.

Iain Duncan Smith: Last year, the Government said they would take away the driving licences from absent parents who failed to pay child support. They announced that three times and the idea received big headlines. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many people have lost their driving licences?

Tony Blair: No, I cannot, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of the measures that we have taken to make parents face up to their responsibilities, the Child Support Agency is now working far better than the hopeless mess that everyone remembers, which we inherited from the previous Government.

Iain Duncan Smith: After such big headlines and so many announcements, the answer is that one person has lost their licence out of nearly 200,000 parents who failed to pay child support. Two years ago, the Prime Minister announced that benefits would be withdrawn from people who failed to do community service. It was spun, and I quote him, as a
	"fundamental to our reform of welfare". To date, that policy has saved less than £5,000. Can he tell us now how much that scheme cost to implement?

Tony Blair: No, but what I can do—[Interruption.] I will send the right hon. Gentleman the figures on how much the scheme has cost. Let me deal with the Child Support Agency. The test, after all, is whether or not more parents are facing up to their responsibilities. If we look at the figures—I will send the right hon. Gentleman the precise figures and perhaps we can discuss them next week—more people are facing up to their responsibilities now than they were a few years ago. In relation to community service orders, more people are fulfilling their obligations, and that is what we want to see.

Iain Duncan Smith: The one group who are not facing up to their responsibilities are the Government. The answer to the question is that to make a small saving of £5,000, the Prime Minister spent £300,000. On Monday, he was back to his old tricks, when he re-announced plans to get more sick and disabled people back to work. I remind him that he spun exactly the same set of stories three years ago, but the number of people on incapacity benefit is rising. By next year, he will have increased the welfare budget by more than the health or education budgets. Surely the reality for the Prime Minister is that the unspun headline is simply, "He talks a good game, but when will he deliver?"

Tony Blair: Let us deal with the welfare budget. If we leave aside the tax credits and the pensioners' help that we want to spend money on, and take the social security budget that is based on social and economic failure, we are saving £4 billion a year over and above the levels of spending that were in place when we came to power. Indeed, leaving aside the areas in which we want to spend money, social security bills are falling in real terms for the first time in years.
	As for what we are doing in the welfare state, we are managing to get those bills down because we have an extra 1.5 million people in work. Although when we came to power hundreds of thousands of young people were on the dole, I can tell the House that as a result of the new deal, the number of young people who are on the dole today is 4,500. That is the difference that we can make by ensuring that we save money on failure and can then spend it on pensioners and working families, which is where we want to spend it.

Hon. Members: More, more.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Bridget Prentice: I doubt that my right hon. Friend is aware that Lewisham is the safest inner-London borough in which to live. However, there is still a problem in the Downham area of my constituency of young tearaways terrorising people with their behaviour. Will my right hon. Friend give me reassurances that I can share with my constituents about what the Government will do about that problem?

Tony Blair: We must do a combination of two things. First, we must take measures on street crime, as we are doing with the Metropolitan police, the Crown Prosecution Service and magistrates in London. Those are significantly successful and are beginning to reduce the figures for street crime. Secondly, we must invest in facilities for young people, and that is why the investment in my hon. Friend's constituency—in sports facilities, in youth services and in the new deal—is important. We will not deal with the issue of what she calls young tearaways unless we make sure that they know that if they commit offences they will be punished, and try to provide alternatives so that they can engage in lawful conduct and proper behaviour, enjoying themselves without disrupting the lives of others.

Alex Salmond: I know that the Prime Minister feels much put upon by the press at the moment, and I am sure that we all share his pain in that regard. If it is true that Mr. Mick Jagger has some good news coming, no one would begrudge Sir Michael such an honour, but the Prime Minister's stated policy is that honours should go to ordinary people who do extraordinary things and provide inspiration for others at times of great personal suffering and trauma, so would not Mrs. Pam Warren be a suitable candidate for such recognition?

Tony Blair: We should give honours to a range of different people. While honours are given to people who are famous and celebrated, this Government introduced honours, and in particular knighthoods, for head teachers who have done an excellent job with their school. We will always have a mix of people in the honours system, and so we should have.

David Cairns: In my constituency the police hold many outstanding arrest warrants against individuals for whom they have no current address, while the local jobcentre and Benefits Agency hold those addresses but are forbidden to co-operate with the police by the Data Protection Act 1998. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Act is there to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and it should not be used in this instance as an obstacle to the fight against crime?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why we want to make sure that requests for information are now considered in respect of all crimes, not only the most serious. There have to be proper safeguards for the civil liberties and privacy of the individual, but the information is vital to the police in their work and I am sure that it should be made available to them.

Paul Beresford: I presume that the Prime Minister is aware of the BBC 2 programme that followed the Metropolitan police paedophile unit for the past two years. It is clear from that and other evidence that paedophile activity is much greater than many of us had realised, and might have been accentuated by the internet. There are three police paedophile units—I hope that the Prime Minister is listening.

Tony Blair: I am.

Paul Beresford: Good. There are three police paedophile units in the country, the largest being the Metropolitan police unit. In the mid 90s, that unit had approximately 17 policemen; in 2000, staffing dropped to 15; it is now down to 13, of whom only eight are operational. I assume that the Prime Minister is concerned about child abuse by paedophiles. That being so, will he tell us what the Government are going to do and when they are going to do it, and will he accept a small deputation on the matter?

Tony Blair: I will certainly consider any request the hon. Gentleman makes, but the position within the Metropolitan police is obviously an operational decision for the police. I do not know what other measures the force is taking, but I know that the Metropolitan police treat the issue very seriously. As for the Government, we have made it clear that we want to tighten the law in that area, and we will do so as soon as possible.

Valerie Davey: The traffic commissioner responsible for bus services in Bristol said recently,
	"I don't want to penalise the public by penalising the bus company."
	Given the commissioner's ineffective powers, what more can the Government do to involve and protect the largest group of users of public transport, bus passengers?

Tony Blair: The best thing we can do is make sure that we invest in bus services, especially rural bus services. Some £200 million is to go into rural bus services, and there are many more services available. Furthermore, under the Transport Act 2000 local authorities have the opportunity to produce transport plans and strategies. However, I think that such decisions are better taken locally.

Archie Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a reception in the House today for victims of cystic fibrosis? It is a debilitating disease from which victims suffer all their life and die prematurely. Does he remember pledging in 1997 to withdraw prescription charges for victims of that disease and reiterating that pledge in the House in March 1999? Does he realise that victims were entitled to take that pledge at face value and that it meant a great deal to them? Is this not a good occasion on which to demonstrate that it was not merely a politician's promise, but that he meant it sincerely and is now going to deliver?

Tony Blair: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about cystic fibrosis and the suffering it causes. Only the other day I met a cystic fibrosis sufferer who made exactly the same points. True, we have to consider the matter within the context of the overall sums that the Government are putting into the health service; on the other hand we are aware of the things that were said previously and we intend to honour them.

Gordon Marsden: This week is national carers week. Six million people—including my constituent Mr. Norman Hosker, who is in his 50s and cares full-time for his 80-year-old mother, who has osteoporosis—save this country about £57 billion a year. Knowing that, and in view of a recent survey showing that only a fifth of local authorities currently have additional funding to implement the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, will my right hon. Friend look favourably on further measures to assist carers in the comprehensive spending review?

Tony Blair: We have put some £500 million into extra support for carers, which has meant that some 300,000 carers nationally have benefited financially. I agree—the reports that are being published today by the Department of Health are an attempt to do this—that we need to get greater co-ordination into the work that is done at a local level. That is precisely what those reports address today. Of course, the issue will be discussed in the next comprehensive spending review.

Points of Order

David Willetts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to invite the Prime Minister to correct the parliamentary record, given the answer that he just gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) about youth employment? The Prime Minister said that 4,500 young people were unemployed, but may I invite him to correct the record, as the correct figure is 244,000, of whom 44,000 have been unemployed for more than six months?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Prime Minister to come to the House to correct his comment during Prime Minister's Question Time that the Conservative Opposition opposed the Proceeds of Crime Bill? I do not recollect that happening at all; rather, the reverse was the case.

Mr. Speaker: That is an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this point of order is not about any answer that the Prime Minister has given, as that is nothing to do with me.

George Osborne: It is not, Mr. Speaker. The Downing street website does not include the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) in its list of Ministers, but yesterday, I saw the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Downing street website has nothing to do with the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED

Corporate Responsibility

Linda Perham, supported by Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. Tony Banks, Sue Doughty, Mr. Simon Thomas, Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. John Horam, presented a Bill to make provision for certain companies to produce and publish reports on environmental, social and economic and financial matters; to require those companies to consult on certain proposed operations; to specify certain duties and liabilities of directors; to establish and provide for the functions of the Corporate Responsibility Board; to provide for remedies for aggrieved persons; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 145].

Data Protection (Amendment)

Mark Francois: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide exemptions in respect of Members of Parliament seeking information on behalf of their constituents; and for related purposes.
	I believe that this Bill touches on an issue that is of current interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House; indeed, it was touched on during Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago. The background to the Bill is the gradual coming into force of the Data Protection Act 1998. As a result of that legislation, some organisations and companies, and public bodies such as local authorities and NHS trusts, are beginning to respond negatively to individual casework inquiries by Members of Parliament on the grounds of access to confidential personal data under the Data Protection Act. Moreover, some organisations are developing a general policy of writing to hon. Members asking them to obtain written consent from constituents before they will discuss any aspect of a constituent's case.
	However, even obtaining subsequent written consent is not as straightforward as it might appear, as it entails deciding from whom the consent should be sought, such as in cases affecting children. For example, one colleague wrote to me recently about a mother who is the legal appointee of her disabled son. That is recognised by the social security commissioners and the ombudsman, but her county council still refuses to recognise her under the Data Protection Act.
	Simple common sense dictates that our constituents have already given us their consent to seek such information by personally requesting us to take up their case in the first instance. People very often approach their Member of Parliament because they have experienced some frustration or perceived injustice from the system, which they request that we help to resolve on their behalf. In such circumstances, the last thing that our constituents need is another letter, this time from us, asking them to fill in yet another form so that we can even begin to look into something about which they specifically asked us to inquire in the first place.
	Some organisations with which we deal also appreciate the problem, but feel bound to operate within the Act as it is currently drafted, as that is the legal advice that they have received. For example, I have a letter on the subject from Mr. Stewart Ashurst, chief executive of Essex county council—and before anyone asks me, I do have his personal consent to cite it in this context. On 21 March, he wrote to me:
	"Many thanks for your letter . . . letting me know of your intention to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill to amend the Data Protection Act. Although the Data Protection Act has many advantages, in particular giving people the opportunity to see information recorded upon themselves, it has also created many barriers to sharing information which can be unnecessary and unhelpful. An MP representing a constituent's interests is an obvious example but there are many others. I am pleased that this issue will be aired on the floor of the House of Commons as a result of the steps which you are taking."
	At best, this new impediment is a bureaucratic waste of time; at worst, it could provide an opportunity for some organisations to try to hide behind the Data Protection Act and withhold information on the treatment or maltreatment of individuals, which could place the organisation in a bad light if it were revealed to Members of Parliament.
	The issue has been raised in the House several times in recent months, including, on a number of occasions, during business questions. In fairness, the Government have intimated that they would like to take some action on the matter, but to date, despite various discussions, no specific proposals have been forthcoming. That is why I proposed this brief Bill in early May and am seeking to advance it today. It would remedy the situation by amending the Data Protection Act to make allowance for Members of Parliament who are pursuing casework inquiries. Specifically, it would amend part IV of the Act, which deals with exemptions—of which there are already quite a number—to provide a new general exemption for Members of Parliament who are seeking information in pursuit of a casework inquiry on behalf of a named constituent or constituents. Such an exemption would then be promulgated so that organisations would be aware that in future they could not continue to hide behind the Data Protection Act when in receipt of an inquiry from a Member.
	In summary, the problem affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and represents an unnecessary bureaucratic impediment to our ability to do our job on behalf of the people who send us here. The Bill seeks to remove that impediment in order to allow Members to continue to assist their constituents as they always have done. For that reason, I believe that the Bill is worth while, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Francois, Mr. Paul Goodman, Chris Grayling, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Mark Prisk, Andrew Selous, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Bill Wiggin and David Wright.

Data Protection (Amendment)

Mr. Mark Francois accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide exemptions in respect of Members of Parliament seeking information on behalf of their constituents; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 146].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Control of entry to United Kingdom, &c.: use of force

In paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) (control of entry, &c.: person liable to detention: use of force) for "if need be by force" there shall be substituted "if need be by reasonable force".'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 139, in clause 49, page 27, line 31, after 'detained', insert 'for a reasonable period'.
	Government amendment No. 103.
	Amendment No. 262, in page 27, line 37, at end insert—
	'unless that person is a child'.
	Government amendments Nos. 104 and 59.
	Amendment No. 60, page 29, line 37, leave out Clause 52.
	Amendment No. 141, in clause 52, in page 30, line 4, after 'persons', insert—
	'whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove'.
	Amendment No. 169, in page 30, line 4, after 'persons', insert—
	'over the age of eighteen'.

Rosie Winterton: Many hon. Members who served in Committee will recall that, in response to points from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), we agreed to consider whether it was necessary to specify in the Bill that the force that could be used by an escort had to be "reasonable". Although we remain of the view that the only force that may lawfully be used is reasonable force, we are content to make that explicit. We have tabled the necessary amendments to effect that.
	The power in clause 50 is linked to paragraph 17(2) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which provides for police or immigration officers to enter premises to execute a warrant. That provision uses the same wording as the original clause 50. In the interests of consistency, we have tabled new clause 9, which will add the qualification "reasonable" to the use of force that is authorised in paragraph 17 of schedule 2.
	Clause 58(1) creates a new power to allow removal directions to be given for the family of the person who is being removed as an illegal entrant, or following refusal of leave to enter. The immigration Acts contain no power to detain such people. Without such a power, it may not be possible to enforce removal in accordance with the directions. The new power that clause 58(1) creates would therefore be empty. Amendment No. 103 plugs the gap and will enable directions to be enforced if necessary.
	Amendment No. 104 is a consequential amendment to section 24 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It ensures that the bail provisions that apply to suspected international terrorists who are detained under the Immigration Act 1971 would apply to such people who might be detained under clause 49. Section 24 of the 2001 Act currently refers to a suspected international terrorist who is detained under the powers in the 1971 Act. Amendment No. 104 would add detention under the Bill. It places those who are detained under clause 49 on the same footing as those who are detained under the powers of detention in the 1971 Act.

Jeremy Corbyn: How does the amendment apply to foreign nationals who are detained under the new terrorism legislation, which does not require any rules of evidence to give information to defendants about the reason for their detention?

Rosie Winterton: The changes that we are introducing will enable those who are suspected of international terrorism to apply for bail. I believe that they will be welcomed because they bring that group of people into line with others.
	I hope that hon. Members will support the Government amendments. I shall, of course, respond to points about the other amendments later.

Humfrey Malins: We welcome new clause 9. I recall vividly a long discussion in Committee on the use of force. Anxiety was expressed that, increasingly, a wider variety of people in society can use force, including police, immigration officials and security officers. The debate was important and many Opposition Members wanted to include "reasonable" before "force". I am therefore pleased that the Government have introduced the new clause, for which I thank them.
	I want to consider the amendments that we have tabled: Nos. 139 and 141. Amendment No. 139 applies to clause 49, and would include the words, "for a reasonable period".
	The Bill, as framed, appears not to set a limit on the period of detention. The purpose of our amendment is to make it clear that the period of detention must be reasonable, and that the likely period for which a person is to be detained is a consideration that the person making the decision must take into account when making that decision and at any subsequent review of someone's continued detention.
	The amendment places the concept of reasonableness in the statute itself. I refer the Minister to the House of Lords judgment in the case of Saadi, which I think is about to come out. The case was heard in May. In the administrative court in September 2001, Mr. Justice Collins ruled that the detention of persons for only seven days at Oakington was unlawful, as it contravened article 5 of the European convention on human rights. His judgment was reversed in the Court of Appeal, but Lord Justice Phillips, obiter, indicated that detention could become unlawful under article 5 if a person was detained for longer than was reasonable to effect the purpose for which he was detained.
	I apologise to the House for quoting from Lord Justice Phillips's judgment at some length, but this is an important point of principle. He said:
	"It seems to us that the Court is considering as lawful detention pending the consideration of an application for leave to enter or the making of arrangements for deportation and not applying a test of whether the detention is necessary in order to carry out those processes. The inroad that we believe the European Court has made into the right of immigration authorities to detain aliens pending consideration of the applications for leave to enter, or their deportation, is that these processes must not be unduly prolonged. It is in relation to the duration of detention that the question of proportionality arises. Although Collins J. held that detention at Oakington did not fall within Article 5(1)(f) at all, he went on to consider proportionality. In so doing the test that he applied was whether detention was proportionate to the need to process applicants speedily. He decided that it was not because he was not satisfied that it was necessary to achieve that object. We consider that the test of proportionality required by Article 5(1)(f) requires the Court simply to consider whether the process of considering an asylum application, or arranging a deportation, has gone on too long to justify the detention of the person concerned having regard to the conditions in which the person is detained and any special circumstances affecting him or her. Applying that test no disproportionality is demonstrated in this case. The Secretary of State has determined that, in the absence of special circumstances, it is not reasonable to detain an asylum seeker for longer than about a week, but that a short period of detention can be justified where this will enable speedy determination of his or her application for leave to enter. In restricting detention to such circumstances he may well have gone beyond what the European Court would require. We are content that he should have done so. The vast majority of those seeking asylum are aliens who are not in a position to make good their entitlement to be treated as refugees. We believe, nonetheless, that most right thinking people would find it objectionable that such persons should be detained for a period of any significant length of time while their applications are considered, unless there is a risk of their absconding or committing other misbehaviour."
	It is clear that there is considerable judicial interest in this matter. That is why we have tabled this amendment on Report—which the Government should accept—qualifying the right to detain by saying that such detention should be "for a reasonable period". It would be most helpful to have that provision in the Bill.
	Our amendment No. 141 applies to clause 52, which defines a "removal centre" as
	"a place which is used solely for the detention of detained persons but which is not a short-term holding facility, a prison or part of a prison".
	Under our amendment, the clause would read,
	"'removal centre' means a place which is used solely for the detention of detained persons whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove".
	The emphasis is on the phrase "lawfully entitled to remove".
	We had many discussions in Committee about the names of the various centres, and the change from "detention centre" to "removal centre". We may return to that issue in our debate today. Detaining asylum seekers is a sensitive issue, and detention should be used with the greatest sensitivity. Detaining persons whom the Secretary of State is not entitled to remove is an unhappy concept for many Opposition Members.
	It is not many months since the fire at Yarl's Wood. Unless I am mistaken, a Home Office website note said that Yarl's Wood was used for the detention of people whose asylum applications had failed and who were about to be removed. However, Yarl's Wood contained a mixture of people. It could take about 900, but at the time of the fire it held only about 400 or slightly fewer. The key point is that they were not all being detained prior to removal. We would have a greater understanding of the situation if that were the case. We know that the Government want to develop the detention estate to about 4,000. We understand the reasoning behind that, but it is important to focus on exactly who will be detained. At Yarl's Wood, dozens of people were being detained whose asylum appeals were under way rather than exhausted. If current asylum seekers are detained, rather than persons whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove, that creates a problem.
	If a person is not lawfully removable, it is strongly arguable that he should not be placed in a removal centre. It is wrong to put other people, such as those awaiting the initial consideration of their asylum applications, into a centre that is now to be designated as a removal centre, as that sends a message that their application will not be considered in an open-minded and fair manner.
	Imagine the scene: a lawful applicant whose process is under way is, without good cause—the Government will probably dwell on the question of what is and what is not good cause—placed in somewhere called a removal centre. What message does that send about the Government's attitude? Some people argue that that could be in breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. I am not sufficiently expert to pronounce on that, but I wonder whether the Minister has taken expert advice and whether she can reassure the House. Furthermore, placing people who are at considerably different stages of the determination process in the same detention environment creates irreconcilable problems for the managers of the detention facilities over the type of regime that should be in place. It may also mean that very vulnerable asylum seekers who, when their cases come to be considered, are found to be refugees will have to spend a lot of time among, not separate from, other types of immigration detainee, and will have to experience an inappropriately high level of security.
	This makes sense, does it not? As we all know, even those remanded in custody in criminal cases before being tried are kept in different circumstances from those serving a sentence following conviction, with very different privileges, entitlements and so forth.
	A person whose claim for asylum has not been fully determined, or whose appeal is outstanding, cannot lawfully be removed. I understand, incidentally, that in a fairly recent case handled by a very senior and established non-governmental organisation, a client was removed while his appeal was pending, and the Home Office had to bring him back to the United Kingdom.
	I feel, therefore, that amendment No. 141 is as important as amendment No. 139.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the mixture of people in detention centres at present. Does he feel, as many of us do, that, in general, asylum seekers should not be detained, or does he believe that there should be different sorts of detention centre for different categories of asylum seekers, failed applicants and people whose removal is pending?

Humfrey Malins: It is not practically possible to detain all asylum seekers. Many years ago, when the numbers were different, we might have been able to discuss that as a practical possibility, although there would have been merits to argue; but it is impossible to detain all the asylum seekers who are now arriving each year.
	What is the proper approach? We support the Government's policy on accommodation centres, but how can I argue that an asylum seeker should be detained unless the authorities have a real fear that that person will abscond, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that detention is necessary? It may be thought that an asylum seeker poses a severe risk in terms of criminal activity; it may be thought that that person has committed a criminal offence. Fine. Subject to judicial oversight, there must be categories of asylum seekers, just as there are categories of ordinary people such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and me. Certain categories do have to be detained, for various reasons. In today's climate, however, the suggestion that all asylum seekers should be detained is both wrong in principle and impossible, in practical terms, to implement. The whole issue is very delicate.
	The hon. Member for Islington, North has been in the House for a long time and knows more about this subject than most of us, probably including me. He has a fine reputation. Nevertheless, he and I both understand that the theme running through many of our debates is the balance between involvement of the state in custodial issues, and the judiciary. We know how important it is to get that balance right—not to let it tilt too far to one side but always, as I said yesterday, to ensure that the judiciary are involved.
	If I were ever locked up, I should want to be locked up on the order of a judge. I should feel much happier then, especially if I had the right of appeal to another judge. Then I would have to take my medicine. I am now rapidly wondering whether I have done anything to deserve it! Anyway, the hon. Gentleman understands the thrust of what I am saying. I do not think we are very far apart.
	I conclude by repeating my unhappiness at the fact that we are moving towards the use of new titles such as "removal centres". As far as I can tell, such centres will not be used to house people who are to be removed. The title "detention centres" is much more acceptable if such centres are to be used for those detained for lawful reasons, subject to the proper right to apply for bail, and so on. It is not surprising that we have tabled an amendment to clause 52 that would define a "removal centre" as a place used solely for the detention of persons
	"whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove".

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman's reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) contained the assumption that, in some circumstances, detention is the right course of action. The hon. Gentleman talks about the judicial review process, but at what stage should that process start? Should it kick in when a person is detained at the point of entry? Should it run alongside consideration of the asylum application?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, but I am anxious not to stray too far from the narrow terms of my amendment. When someone makes an application for asylum on entry, it may or may not be perfectly proper for the Government to decide that they should be detained straight away. However, the point is that the process must be subject to judicial scrutiny, and quickly. If the Government are found to be right, that is fine; if not, that is equally fine. Let us be frank: the judiciary is independent, end of story.
	It is not so much the principle of detention that troubles me. By and large, any Government—including the current Government and the previous Conservative Government—would do their best to act reasonably. What does trouble me is the prospect of a lack of proper judicial oversight. That brings to mind part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and issues such as automatic bail rights, but that is a subject for another day.
	Today's proceedings have got off to a slightly less stroppy start than yesterday's. I hope that the Minister thinks that my general approach has merit, and that, if she is not prepared to accept the amendment, she will consider using the other place to insert something similar in the Bill.

Hilton Dawson: I begin by apologising for tabling amendment No. 262 at this late stage in the Bill's passage. I doubt whether it is the most adequate amendment that has been discussed so far, but it is an important one that is based on an important principle to which I am absolutely committed: that children should not be detained in any form of custody. The only Government policy that I have deep antipathy towards is their willingness to lock up children.
	My constituency has one of the largest child prisons in the country, Lancaster Farms, in which 360 children are shortly to be detained. Under the street crime initiative, we in Lancashire may be introducing custody for 12-year-olds. That is wrong, and we should not do it. We should use amendment No. 262 to promote the non-custodial treatment of all children who are caught up in the deeply distressing circumstances of asylum applications.
	My proposals are entirely in line with the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the Government are a signatory. The Government cannot continue to maintain an opt-out on the immigration and asylum provisions of the convention in defiance of a legal opinion obtained by Save the Children that the opt-out is unsustainable. I suspect that when the Government report to the UN committee on the rights of the child in Geneva in September they will—unfortunately and very sadly—be in great difficulty. Maintaining that opt-out in order to retain the ability to detain children goes against the spirit of the UN convention, which has been signed by every country in the world except two. Few of the signatories maintain any opt-out.
	I shall not press the amendment to a vote. It is similar to an amendment that I tabled previously and I seek the Minister's assurance that she is not happy with detaining children in such circumstances, and that all measures possible will be taken to safeguard the welfare of any children who are detained. I ask again how the provisions of the Children Act 1989 can possibly apply to children in that situation. The broader principle about the rights and wrongs of holding children under 18 in any form of custodial institution are matters to which I shall continue to return in discussion of asylum and criminal justice legislation, until the Government do what is right and fall in line with some of their best principles. The Government have tried to be a good Government for children, and they now need to decide that such treatment of children is utterly wrong.

Simon Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I welcome Government new clause 9 and we will not seek to divide the House on this group. I hope that that is helpful to hon. Members planning their afternoon. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has spoken to amendment No. 262, and we support it because we support the principle that he enunciated of not detaining children. We were similarly motivated when we tabled amendment No. 169.
	I shall speak to amendment No. 60, in my name and my hon. Friends' names, and amendments Nos. 141 and 139, which were tabled with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat support. This is the beginning of a debate on detention and removal that we have not yet addressed on the Floor of the House, although we debated it in Committee. It raises some important principles. The first is the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)—the question of who should be detained. Like him, I believe that detention should not be the presumption. The presumption should be that a person seeking asylum is as lawful a world citizen as is a citizen of this country who was born here and who does not want to go anywhere else. On that basis, detention is necessary only if the person is a risk to society in some way, or has a criminal record that means that he or she should not be let out.
	I accept too that detention may also be used at the very end of the process, when a person has put a case, and lost it after a proper appeal. The Minister knows that I believe that that process should happen in this country, and that people should be here when they appeal. At the end of the process it is acceptable—not desirable, but acceptable—that for a period it may be necessary to detain people immediately prior to their departure from the country. That is necessary to make sure that the link between the final decision that people cannot stay and their removal is not broken, and that people do not disappear from the system at that stage when they know that they cannot succeed with their cases.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that an interesting parallel can be drawn here with what happens in the criminal justice system when a person who has pleaded not guilty to a crime and who has been on bail throughout a lengthy jury trial is finally convicted. If a custodial sentence is coming, it is appropriate for the judge to remand the person in custody for the final fortnight.

Simon Hughes: People who read these debates may not be aware that the hon. Gentleman sits as a recorder in our courts. He is absolutely right: the courts use the procedure that he has described because it is a way to make sure that the interests of the state are protected when there is a danger that they might not otherwise be enforced. That is the principle.
	The second very strong principle that I want to enunciate is that we must not put people in things that are called removal centres if they are not at that stage destined for removal. In that, I share exactly the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Woking.
	I have not begun to understand the Government case to the contrary, but there are all sorts of arguments for saying that it is absolutely wrong to put people in something that used to be called a detention centre—which is suddenly now known as a removal centre—when their cases have not been finally considered. I hope that Ministers will seriously consider the widespread objection to the redesignation. Names are important, and if the Government are going to change the name of those centres they should use an honest one, not a dishonest one. More importantly, there are likely to be adverse consequences.
	The first adverse consequence is that people put in places called removal centres, when no decision has been taken about their case, will not be certain that they will be treated fairly. If they are placed in something called a removal centre, they will presume—I would, and other people would too—that, regardless of the value of their case or of the way they have expressed it, and regardless too of the so-called independent process involved, they will be removed.

Humfrey Malins: It is like being on death row halfway through one's trial.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes an apposite point. People will be being told what the outcome of the process will be before they have had a chance to put their case. That must be wrong. I cannot understand how the Government could even think that the idea was justifiable. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can provide a justification, but she will have to find an argument that none of us have heard from a Minister before.
	I am certain that the House of Lords will change the provision, because it is oppressive and harmful nonsense. People in that position will be adversely psychologically affected. They are likely to be more disruptive and less settled. There are all sorts of arguments why we should not go down that road. I sincerely hope that we can change the name, and that clause 52 will be deleted from the Bill, as my colleagues and I propose. Like the Conservative party, we have proposed amending part of the clause, if we cannot remove it, to achieve that effect.
	The improvement that the Government have made is to put the reasonableness test into this part of the Bill. If people are to be detained by force, they have to be detained by reasonable force. That is clearly welcome. The Government have also accepted the arguments that we made in Committee that there should be a reasonableness test. That is also welcome.
	One reason why we need controls is that, as I understand it, detainee custody officers, who will not necessarily be public employees and are not therefore directly accountable to any public service disciplinary process or public complaints process, will be able to intervene, take possession of property, and so on. That is why my colleagues and I tabled amendment No. 59, to which the Home Secretary added his name. We are concerned that those who go into premises without a warrant to detain people who are then held should be subject to disciplinary processes and proper scrutiny. The least that we can do, therefore, is limit or control the force with which they enter premises. However, I hope that Ministers will go beyond that and let us see the rules that will govern searches of detainees. We have seen no such draft rules yet.
	I hope that the Government will back off from the idea of giving unaccountable employees of private contractors powers that are greater than those of immigration and police officers, who are accountable public servants. It is quite wrong to go down that road, and as the Minister will know from our debates in Committee, my colleagues and I strongly believe that everyone involved in the accommodation and detention of asylum seekers and others should be in the public service and the public sector.
	A bizarre twist is that in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I pressed to a Division a proposal on keeping asylum and accommodation centres in the public realm—the public estate or public provision—the Conservatives abstained, which seemed a perfectly reasonable view to take, and Labour Members opposed it. So the party that used to be the party of public service is opposing keeping things in the public sector. It would appear, according to the way people voted in Committee, that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are much more concerned about these matters than are the Government.
	If people go to a removal centre, it is highly likely to have an adverse effect on them, even if they are eventually allowed into the country. If they are asked where they spent the past six months of their life, Campsfield removal centre is hardly the best thing to put on their resumé or curriculum vitae when going for their first job, having been accepted as an asylum seeker in this country.
	The way in which the Government are moving suggests that they want to give the impression that they will have ever greater powers to remove people, irrespective of the rights that they may establish. It is not as if it is justified on the basis of the figures. I know that the Government are keen to remove people: they say that they want to remove 30,000 people a year. I understand that it has been put in alternative terms at 2,500 people a month, most recently by the Home Secretary. Removals figures are much lower than that.
	Is the redesignation a way to enable the Government to say that they have removed a certain number of people but that they also have more in removal centres? That would create a wholly false impression: it would make it look good to the uninitiated, as if those people were all destined for removal, but of course many of them will be likely to win their cases. The figures are clear: many of the people who go into detention centres will be successful with their cases.
	I will end where I began—following on from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I do not understand how it is possible for this Government to preach human rights around the world but not to endorse in full the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to hold such reservations. I do not understand how that can be other than hypocritical, or how it can be consistent.
	Many of us have had experience of dealing with asylum seekers in our constituency work as Members of Parliament, and before that in our other lives. The hon. Gentleman did so as a social worker, the hon. Member for Woking and I were in the legal profession, and some colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), worked for local authorities.
	The reality is that the state has an obligation to treat young people as young people first, not as asylum seekers. It has a duty to treat children as children and to give them all the things that they need. Many come here unaccompanied, as you know well from your part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and many come with their families. The way we treat them will be reflected in the way they behave when they grow up. If young people are treated as prisoners and locked up, not only will it be bad for them—prisons will make them much more likely to become offenders, to have dysfunctional behaviour and the rest—but it will create the wrong impression about what we think is important about them.
	I therefore endorse the request of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre and I press the Minister, as he did, to say why the Government persist in keeping so many people under the age of 18 in prison in general and why they insist on the right to keep asylum-seeking youngsters in prison. If we are short of general and specialist social services accommodation, social services ought to have more money so that they can provide it, if that is the issue.
	As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, secure local authority accommodation can be provided. Southwark council is a part manager of a place called Orchard lodge in south-east London on behalf of several local authorities; it is entirely secure. The alternative is not to put people in Rochester prison, Lancaster Farms, or anywhere else. Doing so is incompatible with our international obligations. It is bad practice and a bad example.
	I hope that we will change this part of the Bill fundamentally. I also hope that the Minister will give as encouraging a response to these questions as the Home Secretary did on two of the issues highlighted in the first group of amendments that we debated yesterday. Then, the Government accepted Opposition arguments. I hope that they understand the force of the case. We do not want people who are not going to be removed put in places called removal centres. We do not want children to be imprisoned when they should not be. We want everyone to have the right to be outside such centres and to enjoy freedom unless there is a good case for them to be detained and to have their liberty taken away.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief as there is much to debate today. The timetable motion has not done the House any favours. It has prevented debate on a large number of extremely serious matters.
	A dispassionate outsider—indeed anyone—looking at this group of amendments would find it strange that in 2002 we are debating the use of force to remove people from this country, the detention of children, the renaming of centres as "removal centres", and the concept of accommodation centres that are in reality detention centres. They would also find strange the lack of support for many people who are so detained. I find that extremely depressing.
	I have been involved in immigration and asylum law as long as I have been in the House and I have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of constituency cases. I have visited a number of the centres. I find it deeply depressing that the number of people detained rises inexorably over the years while the British increasingly proselytise around the world about being in favour of human rights. About 4,000 people are detained under immigration law, and that number is likely to rise as the years go by. We should be thinking about double standards here.
	I find the principle of detention offensive. A person should be detained only by court order, not by Executive order, and should always have access to the courts, whatever the process behind the detention. The Bill does not allow for that. Indeed, immigration law in effect allows for arbitrary detention—dependent largely on the number of detention spaces available at any time, rather than on the merits, justice or injustice of the case. Surely we should be a bit more grown up than that.
	I strongly endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and support amendment No. 262, which he tabled. I should be grateful to the Minister if she could tell us in her reply where compatibility of the detention of children with the Children Act 1989 comes into play. I have always understood—I may be wrong—that the Children Act supersedes all other legislation in relation to the treatment of children and that the priority is their welfare, education, health and support, not their likelihood or otherwise of absconding. We should think quite seriously about that.
	Yesterday, the House failed to debate the serious issues of education. I would argue that the Children Act 1989 provides the opportunity for education to any child who happens to be resident in this country at any time, but the Bill contains the idea of arbitrary detention.
	I have met many unaccompanied children who have arrived in this country to seek asylum. Without exception, they are deeply traumatised by what they have been through, to the extent that they are often unable to talk about it for several years. Even with very valuable psychiatric help, they find their experience very hard to confront. The horrors that they have experienced come out in their art, writing and conversation. Thankfully, children in this country never see the war scenes that those children have seen—I hope that they never do—yet we seek to detain those children.
	I strongly support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. If we are keen to support UN conventions and resolutions—as we should be—why on earth can we not endorse the convention on the rights of the child, ratify it to its fullest extent and put an end to what I believe is a very serious abuse indeed?

Simon Hughes: About 6,000 asylum-seeking children a year arrive unaccompanied in this country. I want to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are talking not about a handful of youngsters but about a significant number of young people who, for whatever reason, arrive in this country with no adult and no one to look after them.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is a fair point. The figure that the hon. Gentleman gives is about right.
	Obviously, a significant number of children are involved, all of whom have a story to tell and deserve support. Unless they are treated properly and given the necessary support when they arrive here, what will be the effect on them in later life? They have gone through a terrible trauma, but they are, in effect, kept in prison. What kind of adults will they become? What kind of people are we developing as a result?
	I hope that we can have a little more compassion and a bit more understanding and support. Let us remember that all those kids also have hopes, ambitions and ideas. They have a contribution to make to our society, and indeed many of them make that contribution.
	My final point is that we saw the news, the demonstrations and the recent fire at Yarl's Wood. Obviously, what happened there was terrible. Obviously, any injuries sustained are terrible and those events are deeply regrettable. However, we should think for a moment about what would be our view of another country where a fire was caused at a detention centre and many inmates were put in danger as a result, when it was not very clear who was there, why they were there or whether they fell into the category of asylum seekers who had recently arrived but whose cases were dubious, of those who were due to be removed or of those whose cases had gone on for years without being determined.
	There were also riots and disorder at Campsfield. I recall a visit to Campsfield and I could see on people's faces the frustration boiling up there. Having left what they believed to be a dangerous situation in their own countries, where arbitrary detention was the norm, they found themselves arbitrarily detained on arrival in this country. I would hope that the Bill, with its many faults, would at least not make worse the situation of arbitrary detention, unfair detention and lack of justice that is implicit in it.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. In particular, in terms of signing up to the UN convention on the child, we should ratify it, operate it, and, above all, give priority to the welfare, education, social and health needs of children, and not detain them.

Annabelle Ewing: I support all the comments made so far by Opposition Members and Labour Back Benchers. At the outset, I want to say that we are talking about the clause dealing with the redesignation of detention centres, which will be known in due course as removal centres. I have before me a copy of a written question that was answered by the Home Office on Thursday 18 April, and a copy of a reply that I received from the Home Office to correspondence, dated 16 May 2002. Both those documents refer to Dungavel detention centre as Dungavel removal centre. That is curious on the basis that the legislation has not yet been passed, far less brought into force. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why Dungavel detention centre is being referred to in that way in advance of the legislation coming into force.
	On the important substantive issues raised by the amendments, I agree totally that detention is not, in principle, acceptable when one is detaining people who have committed no crime. That is a key tenet of Scots law, and we have a very strict rule in Scotland that one must bring a person to trial within 110 days. The Government's approach to detention policy completely goes against basic principles of Scots law and of natural justice. So we cannot support the Government's detention policy.
	On the specific matters raised, the amendments deal with various important issues concerning the length of time for which somebody could be detained, the grounds on which a person will be detained and the important issue of detaining children in what are effectively prisons. I use the word "prison" carefully. Dungavel detention centre in Scotland was, until very recently, a prison. I visited Dungavel recently, and it shares with a prison the key characteristic that those inside are not at liberty to leave the premises. I shall come back to the issue of children shortly, but, in a civilised state, placing children in what is effectively a prison is shameful.
	On the issue of the grounds on which people are held, which is dealt with in amendment No. 141, it may interest the House to know that, further to a visit to Dungavel detention centre in April, the cross-party group on refugees and asylum seekers in the Scottish Parliament submitted a report, dated 22 April 2002, to the Home Office. I am not clear whether the Home Office has yet responded to the Scots Parliament, and perhaps the Minister will clarify that when she replies. The report raised various concerns about the operation of the Dungavel detention centre, including the grounds on which people were apparently held. That caused a furore in Scotland and led to the then Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), saying on a BBC Scotland programme on 28 April that the only people detained in Dungavel were those who
	"have reached the end of the line . . . have committed an offence, or . . . are regular absconders."
	Those comments have been disputed by individuals inside Dungavel, who said that they had been living happily in the local community and reporting to the local police. After several years, they suddenly found themselves being taken off to Dungavel with no warning whatever. Perhaps the Minister will clarify exactly who is being held in detention centres and confirm whether anyone outwith the three categories outlined by the former Minister of State has been or is being held in a detention centre.
	The length of time for which people are held in detention centres is unacceptable. As I have said, those people have been not been convicted of any crime but, in many cases, they are held for a very long time. That is unacceptable in a civilised country.
	The detention of children is another issue raised by the amendments. I totally concur with what has been said so far. It is a disgrace that the United Kingdom Government are proposing to pursue such a policy. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. There are alternatives that they could properly have considered, one of which was suggested by the cross-party group in the Scots Parliament—a requirement on people to report locally in the community. I see no problem with that suggestion. In any event, the possible damage that could be caused to a child who is detained in what is, in effect, a prison should outweigh any other consideration.
	I am happy to support the amendments, and I hope that the Government will reflect further on their policy for detention centres. The accountability and transparency of the operation of the centres is another important issue. The Dungavel detention centre is operated by a private company, Premier Detention Services, and I asked the Home Office whether the contract with the company could be placed in the public domain. On Friday 10 May I received an answer advising that the service aspect of the contract would be published in due course and that copies would be placed in the Library. One month later, that has not occurred. That sums up the problems surrounding the contracting out of such services to private sector companies.
	My final point deals with a matter that is not raised specifically by the amendments but relates to the operation of detention centres. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how the costs of running them are funded. I imagine that the costs are fairly high. For example, the cost of converting Dungavel into a fully fledged removal centre is expected to be about £3.5 million, and that information has been provided by the Home Office itself. Perhaps the cost of this misguided Government policy will be clarified. Who will pay the £3.5 million for Dungavel? Will it come from the Scottish Executive or the Home Office budget?

Mike Hancock: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will answer many of the points raised, especially those relating to children.
	I draw the Minister's attention to the reply that her colleague gave in another place. In a written answer to Lord Alton, Lord Rooker said:
	"Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are not detained other than in the most exceptional circumstances and then only overnight with appropriate care.
	Detention of children as part of a family unit is not a step to be taken lightly. In each case careful assessment of the need for detention is undertaken.
	When children and families are detained they are accommodated in special family units within dedicated family wings of the removal centre."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. WA65.]
	That suggests that asylum seekers are taken to removal centres on arrival. However, the answer also contains two important statements: first, that that would happen only in exceptional circumstances, and secondly, that it would happen only after appropriate care and assessment. The Minister needs to assure us that nothing has changed since that answer was given.
	We also need to consider the statistics on detention. As of 29 December 2001, 38 per cent. of asylum seekers had been detained for less than a month; 28 per cent. for longer than four months; and 65 people—5 per cent. of those detained during that year—for more than a year. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked about the timing of detention and judicial oversight. When visiting the Campsfield detention centre, the previous chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, stressed that it is an important point of principle that when it is deemed necessary to deprive someone of his or her liberty, that should be overseen by judicial process. He also noted that the process should start quickly.
	We need to be told about the Government's plans for allowing that to happen. Will judicial oversight of detention take place within days, a week or a month of an order being made and a person being detained? We know that some people are detained for a year. Is it right for them to have wait a year before they have redress to judicial oversight? That would surely be contemptible. I hope that the Minister will clarify those matters because people have a right to know. It would also help those outside this country to know what is happening here.
	I also support what the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said about children. My experience of leading the largest local authority in Great Britain for nearly five years was that the Children Act 1989 was paramount and took precedence over all other obligations that a local authority or, for that matter, the state had when it came to the rights of the child. To house children in such detention centres is a dramatic and draconian step by the Government.
	As one of our representatives at the Council of Europe, I am party to writing a report on a common asylum policy for the 43 countries in the Council's family. It is an almighty task and I wonder how easy it will be to get Governments to agree once we have settled on a policy. Nevertheless, one of the fundamentals of the policy will be the rights of the child. Many of us have visited refugee camps in Macedonia, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Those places offer little or no hope to the refugees and sometimes are not even places of safety.
	I recently dealt with a family from Kosovo who were refugees in Macedonia. The mother was killed in a road accident in Kosovo. Her death was not connected with any action there. The father and his family were split up in Macedonia and he was put in a camp with his 13-year-old daughter, where she was raped. The father and the daughter got out of the camp, made their way across Europe and inevitably arrived in the United Kingdom. The father was detained on arrival and released fairly soon afterwards, but the daughter was put into the care of a local authority.
	We are hearing now, however, that if those people were to arrive here in a few months, in the same circumstances, in all likelihood they would both be detained. The girl had already been through the most harrowing experiences that any child could contemplate, but under this measure she could have been faced with the possibility of being detained, even if only overnight. That is not a pretty picture.
	Mr. Speaker and I were lucky enough yesterday to meet a dozen people from the Basque country. They came to the House of Commons to present to Mr. Speaker a plaque commemorating the efforts of our predecessors in 1937 to evacuate Basque children from the war against fascism to the safe haven of the United Kingdom. Those children came here in their hundreds, unaccompanied, and last night several of them, now elderly people, told Mr. Speaker and myself of their experiences.
	One woman had seen her father hanged in the street and her mother raped and killed. Others talked about families being bombed and their homes being burnt out. Each of them had stories to tell, and each had an emotional and truly thankful respect for this country and for the fact that in 1937 we welcomed unaccompanied children, who were brought to this country through the efforts of a Member of this House and by the Royal Navy. Two of them ended up staying here because they had nothing to go back to; their families were killed in that civil war.
	As a nation, we have a proud record of recognising that children have a special place in all our lives. We know that there are 6,000 unaccompanied children in this country, many of whom have come from the most harrowing circumstances in Africa, central and eastern Europe and the Balkans. They represent 6,000 individual tragedies. Many more children arrive here accompanied by one parent. Surely the Government are not suggesting that any of those children, even those who are unaccompanied, should be subjected to the trauma of possible detainment, even for a short period. That cannot be right.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a point about the people who will be responsible for running the centres. It cannot be right that agency staff working for an as yet unknown operation will be able to recruit people, possibly without even training them properly, and then give them powers stronger than those currently available to the police and immigration officers. Surely the Government are not seriously suggesting that they will put such powers into the hands of an organisation over which Parliament will have little or no control and for which Ministers will probably deny liability if anything goes wrong.
	Everyone agrees, I am sure, that the Government are right to try to tackle this issue. We must have policies that are clearly understood, and they must be firm but they must also be fair. They have to give people the chance to test the Government's case against them at the earliest possible opportunity. As hon. Members have said, we must ensure that we sign up to conventions on children's rights. We must then adhere to those conventions in responding to children's needs, and their rights must not be watered down. Those conventions must not be subsumed into legislation as though we can bypass obligations to which we have signed up and of which, as a nation, we should be proud.
	We are obliged to ensure that we deal firmly and fairly, but also quickly, with asylum seekers. If people are to be detained for three months, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to come up with a system that allows people to have access to judicial comfort, either through a review of their case or through legal advice, and deals with asylum applications and the appeals process in a concentrated period. If people are to be detained because the Government believe that there are good reasons why they should not be on our streets, we have to have in place a system that can deal with their cases pretty quickly.

Mike Gapes: I am sure that everyone agrees with what the hon. Gentleman just said. Would he like to take this opportunity to condemn the words of Liberal Democrat councillor Frank Roderick, who said in a newsletter circulated a few weeks ago that the Government were proposing a "Prison Camp for Speke/Garston", adding:
	"These are not genuine asylum seekers or legitimate immigrants which Labour are considering foisting on our area . . . illegal immigrants and asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected, instead of being immediately deported, are being herded into prison camps such as the one Labour is proposing for us."
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely outrageous that that Liberal Democrat councillor is calling for people's immediate deportation, presumably without allowing them any legal rights whatever?

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that those comments are news to me. This is the first time I have heard of them, but I certainly would not want to be a party to those suggestions. However, they have already been brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey by the Minister, and my hon. Friend has undertaken to investigate the circumstances. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made an intervention that was far from helpful to the debate, and he has been equally unhelpful to today's debate by repeating something that is already in the public domain. He has brought a distasteful air to the debate by trying to score a silly political point rather than deal with the crux of the issue.

Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Hancock: No, I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. He has only just come into the Chamber.

Annabelle Ewing: I echo the point that the debate was being conducted in a civilised manner and that the intervention by hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) lowered the tone considerably. If anyone should express regret about language used, we should start with the Home Secretary and his extremely unfortunate use of the word "swamping".

Mike Hancock: That is a helpful contribution, because it reminds the House of that unhelpful and rather sad event.
	We have an obligation to children. I want the Minister to assure me that there are commitments on which the Government are not going to renege. I want an assurance that the comments made by Lord Rooker when he had responsibility for these matters in the other place will be adhered to. Furthermore, we must be assured that the arguments made about early access to judicial procedures have been heeded and that such access will be available. Anything short of those assurances will seriously undermine the nation's credibility not only inside the country, but outside.

Rosie Winterton: We have had a wide-ranging debate and many hon. Members have made powerful speeches about points of concern. It underlines the fact that we are all interested in ensuring that we have a system that deals with vulnerable people not only fairly and quickly but firmly. I hope to be able to give assurances on many of the points made and to explain in more detail some of the background to the decisions that the Government have made and to our proposals.
	I thank hon. Members for their support for new clause 9, which shows that we listened in Committee and that we have come back with appropriate changes. The changes in the Bill do not alter the types of people who are in removal or detention centres. It is the person who makes the decision about detention who is changed. Decisions are already made about families who are referred to detention centres. There has to be a choice in this matter. Whatever the reasons are for referring the principal member of a family to a detention centre, such decisions are not taken lightly, in terms of detention in the first instance, and also in terms of removal, which is a different matter. Separation of children from their families is not a road that we would want to take.

Annabelle Ewing: As I mentioned, it has already been suggested by the Scots Parliament cross-party group on refugees that community reporting is an alternative way of proceeding—a point that I am sure has been made by many others. The family would not be split up, but live in the community and report to the police with whatever frequency was deemed appropriate.

Rosie Winterton: Of course, there are different options. I reiterate that there is always a presumption of granting temporary admission or release with reporting conditions. It is only in terms of detention from the outset, when there are strong grounds for believing that individuals would not comply or problems in identifying somebody, that such a course of action is taken.
	All cases are usually reviewed within 24 hours by a more senior officer than the one who took the original decision. They are also reviewed administratively at monthly intervals, and progressively more senior levels in the immigration and nationality directorate or Immigration Advisory Service consider the decisions. Such decisions can change. For example, that may happen if it is felt that because an appeal is imminent, the likelihood of abscondence has lessened. During that period, there is always scope for the decision to be reviewed and the ability to apply for bail.

Simon Hughes: First, does the Minister accept that, as has been mentioned in other contexts, there is all the difference in the world between a decision being reviewed by another member of Government staff and its being reviewed by an independent member of the judiciary—a magistrate or judge? Secondly, she said that the Bill did not change whom we put in the centres, only who puts them there. In that case, there is no reason to change the name of detention centres. At the moment, it is accurate as they are used for detention, but the future name of "removal centre" is inaccurate, as some of the people who are held may not be removed.

Rosie Winterton: I reiterate that the ability to apply for bail is included in the scenario. For people who are staying in removal centres because they are going to be removed, a very short period is involved, by and large, because removal directions will have been set. If somebody asks for judicial review of their removal directions, their stay will be prolonged. When such directions have been set, however, the time is relatively short, as some of the figures given by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) demonstrated.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a very important point about children in removal centres, or what are currently called detention centres. He said that his amendment might be deficient and that it was tabled at a late stage, but he made a powerful speech, and I hope that I will be able to give him some assurances.
	Removal centres are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, and where educational facilities are present Ofsted will be involved in the inspection. As regards the Children Act 1989, the inspector of prisons has to ensure during inspections that the facilities offered are in line with the care that would be given under that Act. Obviously, we as a Government cannot instruct the inspector of prisons to make inspections, but thematic inspections, among others, will start in the near future. We are confident that no child in the centres would be denied human rights as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they would receive adequate protection and a guarantee of their welfare.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister says that there would be an inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons. Would there be a facility for a visit and inspection by the local social services authority, which seems to be a far more appropriate body to consider the rights and needs of children than the prison inspector?

Rosie Winterton: Local authorities have no right to inspect centres in such circumstances.

Jeremy Corbyn: My understanding is that social services departments are given a specific responsibility under the Children Act to examine the children's welfare, and the prisons inspectorate does not fall within the ambit of the Act. Surely that issue must be resolved.

Rosie Winterton: The provisions do not apply in that respect, but perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that removal centre contractors work closely with local social services, and we expect them to continue to do so.
	On the way in which centres are organised as regards family accommodation, such accommodation is entirely separate, secure and away from the remainder of the centre. There are education, care and play facilities, and professionals are involved in the care of the children. We envisage that that will continue in any new facilities.
	The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) deals with the length of time for which people could be detained in removal centres. It would create an explicit requirement to detain a person for no more than a "reasonable period". Although there is no express requirement in legislation to detain persons for no more than the "reasonable period" necessary in the circumstances of each case, domestic and European convention on human rights jurisprudence is clear and well established on that point, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	The power to detain may be exercised only for the specific purpose authorised by the statute. Detention is permitted only for as long as is reasonably necessary for that specific authorised purpose and the detaining authority must act with due diligence to pursue it. The principle is well understood and we therefore do not believe that it needs to be stated in the Bill.
	I want to consider the issue of renaming detention centres "removal centres". Renaming the centres will reinforce the key role that detention plays in removing those who have no lawful basis for staying here. It does not signal a change of function for centres. Hon. Members have argued for a separation of those who are detained from those who are detained pending removal. However, we do not believe that it is feasible to make that sort of distinction in the centres. Removal centres will always need to be used in other circumstances and at other points in the process when we have power to detain.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister believe that removal centres will always contain some people who are not subject to removal?

Rosie Winterton: Yes. It may be necessary for removal centres to contain such people. That currently happens, and we are changing not the purpose of the centres but the name, to reflect the process more clearly. As hon. Members know, that fits an overall plan of ensuring that we have a clearer idea of people's position throughout the process. Hon. Members must consider the changes in the context of the other changes, such as trialling accommodation centres, and trying to establish a system whereby we can keep in touch throughout the process with people who seek asylum. The process must be firm and fair from beginning to end. If we believe that there is a danger of people absconding or if facilities are necessary for identifying people when there are problems, it is important that we have the ability to deal with that. Separation is not feasible.

Mike Hancock: I appreciate the Minister's clarification that she expects removal centres to contain a mix of people. What will happen if a removal centre is full of people awaiting determination of their asylum application or appeals, and others who are about to be removed cannot get in to the centres? Many people fear that everyone will end up in a removal centre, based on the premise that the result of their application is removal.

Rosie Winterton: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. When removal directions are made, removal will often be quick. Sometimes it will be almost immediate. There will, however, be a fairly fast turnaround of those who have had their removal directions set, as the hon. Gentleman's figures showed. We are seeking to expand the present system. The whole idea of these plans is to make the process speedier, so that people and appeals can be dealt with more quickly. We need, therefore, to ensure that the estate—removal centres, accommodation centres and so on—is adequate to provide the places that are needed.

Simon Hughes: I have two factual questions. First, will the Minister tell us the projected numbers of those who will have finished all their processes and who are being detained, but with their removal planned, compared with the percentage of people who will not have reached that stage, and who will therefore not be guaranteed removal because that may not be the outcome of their appeal? What will be the balance between the two? Secondly, on the name question, are not the Minister and her colleagues giving the game away? This is all about image, about looking tougher, and about sending messages—it does not matter if they are wrong or misleading. This is simply about trying to make the Government sound more and more right wing, hard-line and unsympathetic. That must be what it is about; otherwise the change would not be necessary.

Rosie Winterton: No, it is not about that. This is about establishing a better system, which the hon. Gentleman knows we have to do. He is only too aware that these measures need to be taken to make the system more efficient. Refugees who have been waiting a long time for their status to be confirmed come to my surgeries. They have been through very difficult circumstances, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that we have a system that allows those with genuine claims to get through it quickly. I do not accept that this is simply about window dressing. It is about establishing a proper system and ensuring that we can speed up the process.

Mike Hancock: Unfortunately, I am losing the Minister. I would like to know why the change of name from "detention centre" to "removal centre" will speed the process up. She has said nothing to convince me that simply changing the name will make the process any quicker.

Rosie Winterton: Obviously the hon. Gentleman and the Government will have to differ on this matter.
	I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance in some of my answers, particularly those on children in these situations. The provisions in this part of the Bill do not change the situation for the people in removal centres; they change the people who make the decisions in these circumstances. That is the extent of the provisions. I believe that there are adequate safeguards to address the concerns that hon. Members have raised, and I hope, therefore, that they will consider not pressing their amendments to a vote.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Withholding and withdrawal of support

'Schedule (Withholding and withdrawal of support) (which makes provision for support to be withheld or withdrawn in certain circumstances) shall have effect.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Accommodation: adequacy—
	'(1) After section 97(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (Supplemental) there is added:
	"(1A) Accommodation provided under section 95 will only be regarded as adequate provided:
	(a) it is fit for human habitation as defined by section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended);
	(b) occupation of the accommodation by the asylum seekers and their dependants (if any) will not constitute overcrowding as defined by sections 324, 325 and 326 of the Housing Act 1985;
	(c) it does not constitute a statutory nuisance as defined by section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
	(d) the Secretary of State is satisfied that, if occupied by them, the asylum seekers and their dependants (if any) would be reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect, as defined by section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.".
	(2) After section 100(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (local authority and other assistance for Secretary of State) there is added—
	"(1A) The Secretary of State may ask a local housing authority to take such steps as they are allowed by law to ensure accommodation provided under section 95 is adequate as defined by section 97(1A).".'.
	New clause 17—Accommodation of unaccompanied asylum–seeking children—
	'(1) All unaccompanied asylum–seeking children shall be offered the opportunity to be accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
	(2) Such children may be accommodated by any local authority.'.
	Government new schedule 1—'Withholding and Withdrawal of Support—
	Ineligibility for support
	1 (1) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not be eligible for support or assistance under—
	(a) section 21 or 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29) (local authority: accommodation and welfare),
	(b) section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46) (local authority: welfare of elderly),
	(c) section 12 or 13A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 49) (social welfare services),
	(d) Article 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I. 14)) (general social welfare),
	(e) section 21 of and Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (social services),
	(f) section 17, 23C, 24A or 24B of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (welfare and other powers which can be exercised in relation to adults),
	(g) section 29 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36) (after-care),
	(h) section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being),
	(i) a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33), or
	(j) a provision of this Act.
	(2) A power or duty under a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1) may not be exercised or performed in respect of a person to whom this paragraph applies (whether or not the person has previously been in receipt of support or assistance under the provision).
	(3) An approval or directions given under or in relation to a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to be subject to sub-paragraph (2).
	Exceptions
	2 (1) Paragraph 1 does not prevent the provision of support or assistance—
	(a) to a child, or
	(b) under or by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 8, 9 or 10 below, or
	(c) in a case in respect of which, and to the extent to which, regulations made by the Secretary of State disapply paragraph 1.
	(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(c) may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State.
	(3) A reference in this Schedule to a person to whom paragraph 1 applies includes a reference to a person in respect of whom that paragraph is disapplied to a limited extent by regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(c), except in a case for which the regulations provide otherwise.
	3 Paragraph 1 does not prevent the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty if, and to the extent that, its exercise or performance is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of—
	(a) a person's Convention rights, or
	(b) a person's rights under the Community Treaties.
	First class of ineli
	4 (1) Paragraph 1 applies to a person if he—
	(a) has refugee status abroad, or
	(b) is the dependant of a person who is in the United Kingdom and who has refugee status abroad.
	(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a person has refugee status abroad if—
	(a) he does not have the nationality of an EEA State, and
	(b) the government of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom has determined that he is entitled to protection as a refugee under the Refugee Convention.
	Second class of ineli
	5 Paragraph 1 applies to a person who has the nationality of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom if—
	(a) his presence in the United Kingdom is not in reliance on a right under or by virtue of the Community Treaties, or
	(b) his presence in the United Kingdom is in reliance on a right under or by virtue of the Community Treaties which permits residence in a member State subject to conditions designed to avoid burdens on social assistance systems or social security systems.
	Third class of ineli
	6 Paragraph 1 applies to a person if—
	(a) he was (but is no longer) an asylum-seeker, and
	(b) he fails to cooperate with removal directions issued in respect of him.
	Fourth class of ineli
	7 Paragraph 1 applies to a person if—
	(a) he is in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws within the meaning of section 11, and
	(b) he is not an asylum-seeker.
	Travel assistance
	8 The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made enabling a person to whom paragraph 1 applies by virtue of paragraph 4 or 5 to leave the United Kingdom.
	Temporary accommodation
	9 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for the accommodation of a person to whom paragraph 1 applies pending the implementation of arrangements made by virtue of paragraph 8.
	(2) Arrangements for a person by virtue of this paragraph—
	(a) may be made only if the person has with him a dependent child, and
	(b) may include arrangements for a dependent child.
	10 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for the accommodation of a person if—
	(a) paragraph 1 applies to him by virtue of paragraph 7, and
	(b) he has not failed to cooperate with removal directions issued in respect of him.
	(2) Arrangements for a person by virtue of this paragraph—
	(a) may be made only if the person has with him a dependent child, and
	(b) may include arrangements for a dependent child.
	Assistance and accommodation: general
	11 Regulations under paragraph 8, 9 or 10 may—
	(a) provide for the making of arrangements under a provision referred to in paragraph 1(1) or otherwise;
	(b) confer a function (which may include the exercise of a discretion) on the Secretary of State, a local authority or another person;
	(c) provide that arrangements must be made in a specified manner or in accordance with specified principles;
	(d) provide that arrangements may not be made in a specified manner;
	(e) require a local authority or another person to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in making arrangements;
	(f) require a local authority or another person to comply with a direction of the Secretary of State in making arrangements.
	12 (1) Regulations may, in particular, provide that if a person refuses an offer of arrangements under paragraph 8 or fails to implement or cooperate with arrangements made for him under that paragraph—
	(a) new arrangements may be made for him under paragraph 8, but
	(b) new arrangements may not be made for him under paragraph 9.
	(2) Regulations by virtue of this paragraph may include exceptions in the case of a person who—
	(a) has a reason of a kind specified in the regulations for failing to implement or cooperate with arrangements made under paragraph 8, and
	(b) satisfies any requirements of the regulations for proof of the excuse.
	Offences
	13 (1) A person who leaves the United Kingdom in accordance with arrangements made under paragraph 8 commits an offence if he—
	(a) returns to the United Kingdom, and
	(b) requests that arrangements be made for him by virtue of paragraph 8, 9 or 10.
	(2) A person commits an offence if he—
	(a) requests that arrangements be made for him by virtue of paragraph 8, 9 or 10, and
	(b) fails to mention a previous request by him for the making of arrangements under any of those paragraphs.
	(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
	Information
	14 If it appears to a local authority that paragraph 1 applies or may apply to a person in the authority's area by virtue of paragraph 6 or 7, the authority must inform the Secretary of State.
	Power to amend Schedule
	15 The Secretary of State may by order amend this Schedule so as—
	(a) to provide for paragraph 1 to apply or not to apply to a class of person;
	(b) to add or remove a provision to or from the list in paragraph 1(1);
	(c) to add, amend or remove a limitation of or exception to paragraph 1.
	Orders and regulations
	16 (1) An order or regulations under this Schedule must be made by statutory instrument.
	(2) An order or regulations under this Schedule may—
	(a) make provision which applies generally or only in specified cases or circumstances;
	(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;
	(c) make transitional provision;
	(d) make consequential provision (which may include provision amending a provision made by or under this or another Act).
	(3) An order under this Schedule, or regulations which include consequential provision amending an enactment, shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(4) Regulations under this Schedule to which sub–paragraph (3) does not apply shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	Interpretation
	17 In this Schedule—
	"asylum-seeker" means a person—
	(a) who is at least 18 years old,
	(b) who has made a claim for asylum (within the meaning of section 16(3)), and
	(c) whose claim has been recorded, but not determined, by the Secretary of State,
	"Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42),
	"child" means a person under the age of eighteen,
	"dependant" and "dependent" shall have such meanings as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
	"EEA State" means a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time),
	"local authority"—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 105(3),
	(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in section 105(4), and
	(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means a health service body within the meaning of section 109(4)(c),
	"the Refugee Convention" means the Convention relating to the status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol, and
	"removal directions" means directions under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry, &c.), under Schedule 3 to that Act (deportation) or under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (removal of person unlawfully in United Kingdom).'.
	Amendment (a) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 4(1)(a), after "abroad", insert—
	'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation and is not seeking to transfer his refugee status to the United Kingdom'.
	Amendment (b) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 4(1)(b), at end insert—
	'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation and is not seeking to transfer his refugee status to the United Kingdom'.
	Amendment (c) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 5(a), after "Treaties", insert—
	'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation'.
	Amendment (d) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 5(b), at end insert—
	'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation'.
	Amendment (e) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 6(a), leave out "and".
	Amendment (f) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 6(b), at end insert—
	'and—
	(c) he does not allege that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if he were removed and there are no outstanding appeals or judicial review proceedings in connection with that claim or his asylum application'.
	Amendment (g) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 7(b), at end insert—
	', or—
	(c) he has no other outstanding application for leave to enter or remain either before the Secretary of State or appeal before a Court, Adjudicator or the Tribunal'.
	Amendment (h) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	Amendment (i) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	Amendment (j) to the proposed schedule, leave out paragraph 12.
	Amendment (k) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 13, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	Amendment No. 49, in clause 37, page 19, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 84, in page 19, line 18, leave out from "shall" to "House" in line 19 and insert—
	'not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each'.
	Government amendments Nos. 217, 216 and 254.
	Amendment No. 50, in clause 38, page 20, line 13, leave out "and" and insert "or".
	Amendment No. 51, in page 20, line 14, at end insert—
	'or both.'.
	Government amendment No. 255.
	Amendment No. 52, in page 20, line 17, leave out "and" and insert "or".
	Amendment No. 53, in page 20, line 18, at end insert—
	'or both.'.
	Amendment No. 261, in clause 39, page 23, line 4, leave out subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).
	Amendment No. 54, in clause 43, page 24, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "must".
	Amendment No. 55, in page 24, line 35, at end insert—
	'(aa) give priority to meeting the person's particular needs'.
	Amendment No. 56, in page 24, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
	Government amendment No. 218.
	Amendment No. 143, in clause 45, page 26, line 3, after "appellant", insert "and any witnesses".
	Amendment No. 144, in page 26, line 4, after "appeal", insert "or seeking legal advice".
	Amendment No. 57, in page 26, line 4, at end add—
	'103C Advice and assistance
	(1) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides—
	(i) advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal under this Part;
	(ii) other services for the welfare of those persons.
	(2) A grant under this section may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment).'.
	Amendment No. 194, in clause 133, page 74, line 26, leave out paragraph (f).

Beverley Hughes: Many Members will be aware of the situation faced by many of our local authorities, which are increasingly being presented with individuals and families claiming support who are at various stages of the immigration and asylum process and have a different status. I recognise that this issue may present some hon. Members with an acute challenge. None of us faced with such people in our constituencies likes to say no. Most MPs want to help other people, wherever they come from, and it rightly does not come easy to us to contemplate withdrawing support or sending people out of the country. However, we must recognise our responsibilities to other constituents and to people who are legitimately settled in this country. The provisions in the new clause deal with some sharp questions.
	Should local authority funds appropriately be used to support people who have established refugee status elsewhere, and should they continue to support those whose claim in this country has failed? Should that support continue in the face of decisions by those people not to leave even when the means of leaving is provided to them? We have concluded that the answer to those questions is no. In balancing the interests of people claiming support with those of local taxpayers, local people settled here and local authorities, the balance ought to lie with the latter. Perverse incentives in the current arrangements enable people to claim one source of public support from local authorities when their status excludes them from other such sources. We believe that we must grasp that nettle.
	I know that hon. Members will want to raise issues on this new clause, but I should be grateful if they would allow me to set out the ground a little. I am introducing this amendment to assist local authorities by providing legal clarity when dealing with applications for support from certain categories of new arrivals in the United Kingdom.
	At the moment, different local authorities adopt different approaches to claims for support from European Union and European Economic Area nationals and from refugees from EU and EEA states. Local authorities are being approached for social services support, usually under the National Assistance Act 1948, or in the case of people with children, under the Children Act 1989, as individuals try to claim and fail what is known as the habitual residence test. Many hon. Members will be aware that the habitual residence test is applied to those seeking access to income-related benefits such as jobseeker's allowance and income support. It seeks to ensure that those eligible for benefits have sufficiently close ties to the United Kingdom. It was introduced to restrict benefits for people with little or no connection with the UK, and no commitment to settling here. The underlying principle is that UK taxpayers should not subsidise people with very tenuous links to the UK.
	An increasing number of people are now arriving in the UK and seeking assistance from social services. The extra demand is placing great pressure on local authorities' social services budgets, and creating significant problems for them. We do not know the precise numbers with which we are faced, which is an indication of the problems experienced by some of the statutory authorities that are trying to cope with what has been a significant influx in some areas.
	We have received reports from local authorities and, indeed, from some of our Government offices. The evidence suggests that in Leicester alone between 2,000 and 10,000 people of Somali origin—probably a number in excess of the smaller figure—have migrated over the past 18 months or so. Although the problem is highlighted by the arrival of Dutch nationals of Somali origin, there are reports of growing communities from other areas such as Portugal and Montserrat.
	Currently, when local authorities decide whether support in the form of accommodation or otherwise will be provided, they do not take account of the applicant's immigration status. That means that not just those with citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state, but people who are unlawfully present in the UK, can receive support. Our proposals are intended to ease the pressure on local authorities, to clarify their legal position and to create a level playing field between one authority and another, while also giving individuals and their families the means to return to their home country or the country in which they acquired refugee status.
	Two recent court cases have helped us. A very recent case, that of G v. Barnet in 2001, involved a Dutch national of Somali origin who asked for local authority accommodation for her and her child. Given the circumstances, the local authority offered her a voluntary place of care for her child, and the means for both to return home to Holland where support was available. The Court of Appeal decided that that was a reasonable offer, and that the authority was not obliged to house the family if they rejected the offer—although it would be obliged to house the child, and indeed was willing to do so. This year the cases of Ali and Mohammed v. Birmingham involved similar circumstances, and again the court found that the authority's approach was lawful.
	As for those with citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state, under the new proposals short-term accommodation may be provided for families with children, as well as a one-way journey to their home country. If the family do not take up the offer of travel, or fail to travel, all support will be withdrawn apart from an offer of support for the children under section 20 of the Children Act. For asylum seekers whose claim has not succeeded, who can go but who fail to comply with removal directions, all support will end. Local authorities will be able to offer support only to children, again under section 20 of the Children Act.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister says that the local authority will provide support for children only, and not for their parents. In such cases would the children be taken into care, or would the traditional social services approach of supporting the whole family in order to support the children apply?

Beverley Hughes: No, the children would be received into care under section 20 of the 1989 Act and given accommodation, but support for the adults would be withdrawn. That is the point of the measure. If, having been offered travel, the family refused to go or failed to comply, the arrangements would be offered to the children but not the adults.
	Local authorities will be required to inform the Home Office about those resident in the UK unlawfully who are not asylum seekers, and who apply for local authority support, so that removal can be arranged. Again, local authorities may provide short-term accommodation to families with children until the date of removal. Should such a family fail to travel, all support will be withdrawn, other than the offer of support for children under section 20 of the 1989 Act.
	We will ensure that children and other vulnerable persons continue to receive appropriate care, while allowing families to stay together by enabling them to accept the offer of travel home. In particular, those with special care needs will continue to have them met until the date of travel. If they do not travel, unless they have an acceptable reason for not doing so—for example, they are too ill, and a medical certificate supports that view—care will be provided at the minimum level, in compliance with the European convention on human rights.

Simon Hughes: These are difficult issues and no one should pretend otherwise. I shall give the Minister two examples that I am advised illustrate the unfair consequence of such a proposal. The first is that of an Irish citizen with a disability who has lived here for 30 years, who clearly has the nationality of another EEA state, and who is not seeking to use their Community treaty rights. As I understand it, under the proposal they would have to be sent back to Ireland, because they would be ineligible for benefits here.
	The second and perhaps more acute example is that of a citizen of another country—say, Ireland—who is the dependant of a person with refugee status in another European country, such as the daughter of someone who settled in Germany 20 or 30 years ago. Does not the proposal imply that many people will be required to move from a place in which they have lived perfectly lawfully for decades, and go to a country where they may have no relatives and, in effect, no home? That surely cannot be right.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman rightly leads us into some technical areas. In cases where citizens of EU or EEA countries have rights under Community treaties of one kind or another, it is not intended that the policy will take away those rights. On the examples that he mentions, even the most draconian interpretation of the habitual residence test would regard someone who has lived here for 30 years as an habitual resident. Such a person would therefore meet the test and be entitled in the normal way.
	In addition to the measures that I have outlined, we must accept the need to guard against those who may seek to abuse the support and facilities offered to them. For that reason, we are also introducing two new offences as part of the measures. First, it will be an offence for a person who has accepted the offer of short-term accommodation and/or a journey home to return to the UK to try to claim benefits again. Secondly, to help to ensure that local authorities have the best information before them when considering a request for support under these provisions, it will be an offence for a person to fail to mention—to fail to declare—any previous request for support under these measures. That is necessary to prevent people from going from one local authority to another and making claims.
	I am also placing an obligation on local authorities, as I have mentioned, to report to the Secretary of State any person in their area whom they reasonably suspect to be unlawfully present in the UK or any failed asylum seekers who are refusing to co-operate with attempts to remove them. That will help the Home Office in instigating removal action against appropriate individuals.

Iain Coleman: These are technical and complex matters. What discussions and consultations have been held with the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and other local authority associations? Can my hon. Friend the Minister advise me of the detail of any such discussions and whether those organisations support the measures that she is outlining today?

Beverley Hughes: It is fair to say that the concern has arisen because of the situation that many local authorities have faced, the details of which they have brought to our attention. Some local authorities, including Barnet and Birmingham, have tested the case in law, as I mentioned earlier, but other local authorities—whose social security budgets are also very stretched—are unclear about the extent to which they can lawfully follow the example of those that have tested cases. The measures are in the spirit of requests from many local authorities to clarify the law and to make their position clear in legal terms.
	When local authorities come to implement the provisions, we will need to provide guidance to them on some of the technical detail, and we will certainly do so. I am also satisfied that these measures comply with the requirements of the European convention on human rights and our other international obligations.
	It has been established that those with refugee status in an EEA state or nationals of that state have entitlement to support elsewhere. Therefore, we have to come to the conclusion that for such people to claim support here is not an acceptable use of our resources and presents a considerable burden for local authorities and their social services budgets. We have to make it clear that local authorities will not be empowered to provide such support in future. That clarification will be helpful to local authorities, many of which have been uncertain whether, to what extent and in what circumstances they should provide support.
	The Opposition have tabled several amendments to the new clause and the schedule. I shall reply on those amendments later, but I can tell the House in advance that I will not accept them. Many of them would undermine the whole principle behind the new clause. I shall be interested to hear what hon. Members have to say in their favour.
	Government amendments Nos. 254 and 255 make it clear that a person is destitute if he or she does not have adequate accommodation and food, or other essential items. My hon. Friends listened carefully to the discussions in Committee and to the concerns that the original draft clause indicated a change in policy. While I am satisfied that the original draft achieved the policy aim and that we explained that point in detail to the Committee, we have taken the opportunity to amend the clause to take on board the points made.
	Government amendments Nos. 216 to 218 are technical amendments that clarify the fact that support will not be provided to those outside the United Kingdom. Government amendment No. 216 amends the definition of an asylum seeker for support purposes and says that people must be in the United Kingdom if they are to fall within the definition. Government amendment No. 218 clarifies the fact that an appeal made under clause 45 against a decision to stop providing support, or against a decision that a person does not qualify for support, may not be brought by someone outside the United Kingdom.
	Finally, Government amendment No. 217 is a small technical amendment related to clause 38. It has no effect other than to simplify the way in which the clause is presented. It does not alter the substantive arrangements.

Simon Hughes: As the Minister rightly said, Government new clause 10 is the method by which the proposals in Government new schedule 1 will be introduced. It is an enabling measure to which we cannot have objections in principle. However, we are concerned about the new schedule.
	As I said earlier, this is complex territory. It is difficult for the House to do justice to such a proposal, given that it did not appear in the Standing Committee. It appeared only after the Committee ended. There is nothing new about that, but it is exactly the sort of proposal that should go before a Special Standing Committee, so that people can give evidence about it. It should at least be brought before the Standing Committee for detailed consideration.
	The House deals with new schedules, new clauses and amendments in a certain way, however. Liberal Democrat Members have tabled a set of amendments to new schedule 1, but the way in which Government business is taken means that they cannot be voted on. At the end of the debate, therefore, we will seek to divide the House on new clause 10 to register our disapproval of some of the matters in the package. They include the complex issue in new schedule 1 of what, in shorthand, is called the problem of benefit shopping.
	Amendment No. 49 embodies our strong objection to the Government's intention to change the financial support system to prevent people who have the chance of gaining accommodation with friends or relatives around the country from getting the financial support that would allow them to do so. That option saves a huge amount of money at present, as the accommodation is provided free of cost to the Government.
	When we debated the matter in Standing Committee with the Minister's predecessor, we talked about the National Asylum Support Service support system and registered our strong disapproval and the fact that we did not believe that the proposals in the Bill would be in the Government's interest. It must be cheaper if people who are willing and able to look after themselves do not ask the Government to pay for their accommodation but only for their necessary living costs over and above the cost of accommodation. That must be cheaper for the Government than if they have to meet the costs of accommodating people and of paying them benefits as well.
	We therefore object to some of the details that emerged only last week, and to the idea that the chance of benefits will be taken away from people who, as asylum seekers, might otherwise be given accommodation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I accept that there needs to be a regime across the EU that prevents people from gaining a set of entitlements in one country and then transferring them, without any authority, to another country. There need to be rules about that. However, that is a much wider area than could properly be covered in this debate.
	The Minister probably knows from her constituency surgery, as I do from mine, of people who are lawfully in this country because they have been given refugee status but who have no automatic right to travel to other countries. They are lawfully here but cannot visit their relatives in Paris, for example, because there is no European Union-wide recognition of the rights of people who have less than full rights in EU member states. I am aware that the European Parliament has debated this, and colleagues there have talked to me about it. It strikes me that the way to deal with such issues is to seek EU-wide agreement on the rights of people who have been accepted in one place but may need, for a short or long period, to go somewhere else.
	I do not argue that people who, to take the Minister's example, might originally have come from Somalia and then settled in the Netherlands should have the right to come to the United Kingdom and claim benefits in addition to those they receive in the Netherlands. Of course that would not be right—European Union member states should pay only once. However, it may be perfectly proper to transfer such rights, on application, from one country to another.
	This is the largest group of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be debated today. Some have been tabled by the Government, some by the Conservative party, some by the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has also tabled a new clause. I shall deal with these as speedily as I can and at least put the argument before the Minister. Inevitably, if the Government hold their supporters behind their policy, they will win the day today, but these matters will have to be revisited in much greater detail when they go to the House of Lords, because there has been no opportunity for parliamentarians to look at them in detail here.
	I will take the proposals in order. New clause 4, tabled by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberal Democrats, would provide for tests of adequacy of accommodation. It is relatively self-explanatory; I support it and hope that the Minister will accept it. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady indicated in her reply whether a proposal along these lines is acceptable. It would ensure that those in the dispersal system have adequate accommodation and that they are not excluded from protection when it comes to the sort of decent accommodation that we would expect other people in poor circumstances to have if they were born in this country or were British citizens.
	In new schedule 1, the Government propose that for those who have been given refugee status abroad, who are citizens of another EU state, who are failed asylum seekers, or who are unlawfully in the United Kingdom—each category may merit different treatment—a raft of potentially available benefits will disappear. We normally think of such benefits as coming under the National Assistance Act 1948 and being distributed through the social services.
	Like the Minister, I represent an urban consistency and understand the pressure on all local authorities, particularly with regard to the social services budget. We know how councillors and officers have to juggle the budget and the huge pressure that they are under, to which the Government have, in part, responded. Our general concern—I am trying to be general as well as succinct—is that by taking away all such benefits, groups of people could, for periods of time, be without any recourse to benefit and have no practical alternative.
	Our amendments to the new schedule would allow a continuing right to benefit for people with an outstanding human rights claim or appeal, those who might have another claim to support or social and medical assistance under the European convention on human rights, or those who seek to transfer their refugee status. To take the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), if people had fled from a country in which there was civil war, such as Ethiopia, and come to Europe only to discover that their wife, child or parent was in another European country, they would seek to be reunited. That is the sort of argument behind the amendments to Government new schedule 1.
	On our amendment No. 49, clearly the option of cash-only support should be kept open. The Minister did not deal with that. I have not heard any arguments from her or her predecessors to suggest that what the Government are proposing will be any cheaper. They are saying that support only is being used to avoid dispersal. When the National Asylum Support Service system started, 100 per cent. of support-only applications were in Greater London. The figure is now only about 70 per cent. If that is the case, support only does not stand in the way of dispersal. Indeed, if it were withdrawn, many people who are staying with relatives and friends in London and other parts of the country would be disadvantaged.
	I understand that at the end of 2001, 25,000 asylum seekers were receiving voucher-only support and were not asking the Government to house them, whereas just over 40,000 were supported in NASS accommodation—a ratio of nearly a third to two thirds. I do not understand how it would be cheaper to get rid of that option. It would not, therefore, be in the Government's or our interests to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: On the figures for NASS and non-NASS supported cases, am I right in thinking that it is the longer-term asylum seekers, who have come back to London after being dispersed elsewhere and suffering harassment or whatever, who are non-NASS supported? They are often living in terrible poverty, supported by other asylum-seeking families who are themselves trying to survive on 70 per cent. of income support.

Simon Hughes: That is certainly my experience. Many of the asylum seekers in my constituency are not asking the state for a great amount of support. Often, they rely on their church or faith community and on a network of provision that would normally be sent to support family in the home country, and which is therefore not sent.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: many of these people were sent out of London. They found it better to come back here to people who speak the same language than to live on their own in an estate in, say, the east end of Newcastle—that is one example that I know for a fact—with no one else from their national group anywhere nearby, and no one to converse with.

David Blunkett: It would be better in an accommodation centre.

Simon Hughes: Indeed, it might be. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is why we have supported such centres as an option. In many cases, however, dispersal was not satisfactory. He has made the case that it is working better, but it does not work better for everyone. Some people say that they are willing to take responsibility for themselves and stay with friends—albeit in dire, overcrowded accommodation—because it is more comfortable to be with people who come from the same place and understand their needs than to be miles from anywhere and from anyone who understands what they need.
	On amendment No. 84, like the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), we believe that there should be affirmative resolutions before we go down the road proposed in clause 37. It is important that social security matters automatically receive proper scrutiny from the House.
	We do not object to Government amendment No. 217, as it tries to tidy up the legislation, which is what I suggested to the Home Secretary that we should do to the entire Bill at the end of this exercise. Asylum issues should be in one part of the Bill, separate from non-asylum issues.
	We do not object to Government amendment No. 216. Clearly, the provision should relate to people who are in the United Kingdom, not those who are outside it. Nor do we object to Government amendment No. 254, which is for clarification.
	In Committee we questioned what the wording meant, and we have tabled amendments Nos. 50 to 53, which would have had the same effect as Government amendments Nos. 254 and 255. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has proposals that are along the same lines and has tabled amendment No. 261, which we support. I hope that he will have an opportunity to persuade Ministers that that amendment would be appropriate.
	We are troubled by the Government proposals in clause 43, which would allow the Secretary of State to choose the provision by which the asylum seeker is offered support and, in effect, would not allow asylum seekers to suggest an alternative. Having taken advice, that is our interpretation of what the clause would mean. Under clause 43, people may have to take the support that they are told to take or they may have no support. For example, people may say that they are willing to stay with family and friends and that they would prefer cash support, but that is no longer an option. That is why my hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 54.
	I accept that amendments Nos. 55 and 56 contain drafting errors. The Minister's advisers will have spotted those errors, and I apologise for them. Those amendments should have included requirements for certain things and not others, but they came out wrong, so I shall not pursue them at this stage. However, we want to make it clear that priority individual needs should be met.
	I am coming to the end of the list. I apologise for its length, although the grouping of amendments was out of my control, but at least we can get rid of a lot of issues in one go.
	We do not dissent from Government amendment No. 218. With such issues, it is proper that people cannot seek to appeal decisions involving benefits when they have left the country. That is entirely different from yesterday's debate on appeals to remain in the country. People should make those appeals when they are in this country; they should not be required to leave.
	Under amendments Nos. 143 and 144, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats jointly propose that people should be able to receive expenses for the travel involved in putting their cases, that their witnesses—if they are needed—should be able to receive financial support, and that legal advice should be available.
	Under amendment No. 57, we propose that the Home Office should be able to give grants to those voluntary organisations that help people with social security, benefits and welfare appeals. That proposal is strongly supported by the Immigration Advisory Service, which is based in my constituency and whose chief executive is highly regarded throughout the House. I hope that hon. Members support that amendment and that the Government will be sympathetic to it.
	Under amendment No. 194—the last in this group—we suggest that the cash-only support removal proposal should be subject to a separate debate in the House under the affirmative procedure before we agree to it.
	I apologise for going through all the amendments in this group individually, but I thought that proper as they cover many issues. Unless the Government give us considerable comfort, we will not feel able to support their proposals at the end of the debate, because they have not been argued fully, because Parliament has not had a chance to debate them fully, and because they will produce some apparently wrong decisions, among some that are perfectly justifiable and correct.
	Unfortunately, we cannot separate the issues by voting on each amendment, as the Conservatives did yesterday, so we shall register our opposition. More importantly, we hope that the Government will hear the voices of hon. Members and those outside the House and change some of these unnecessarily draconian proposals.

Neil Gerrard: I want to raise two issues briefly. First, I have a number of questions about new schedule 1. I must admit that I have difficulty in understanding all its implications; the schedule is complex and long.

Simon Hughes: It is recent.

Neil Gerrard: I shall be generous: new schedule 1 has recently appeared on the amendment paper. Clearly, it will have a serious impact on the individuals who will be subject to some of its provisions, as they may lose all forms of support.
	I well understand the argument that questions why a local authority should support someone who is entitled to be supported elsewhere. Why should someone who has perfectly normal rights to receive support in another EU country come to the United Kingdom, turn up at a local authority's offices and demand support? I understand the rationale behind such an argument.
	I clearly understand the reasoning behind the proposals for children and families. Obviously, great pressure would be put on individuals who were told that they were to be removed from the United Kingdom, if the choice that faced them was either to comply with the removal directions, or for their children to receive support and be taken into care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 while they themselves received no support.
	I may be getting the proposal completely wrong because I have not had the time to understand all the details, but I find it difficult to see exactly how some of the provisions will work. Local authorities provided many but not all of the forms of support referred to in paragraph 1 of new schedule 1, including those under the National Assistance Act 1948, the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. There is a reference—I am not sure what it means—to section 21 of and schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. I hope that that does not mean that access to mental health services may be cut, if those services are relevant.
	If those are the sort of benefits that may disappear and which people risk losing, it is fairly obvious that many of the decisions to remove such support will be taken by local authorities. A local authority will be faced with having to decide whether to give someone support under the National Assistance Act 1948, or withdraw the support that has already been given under that Act.

Karen Buck: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When they make assessments for services, local authorities will have an opportunity to determine whether someone is eligible for assistance. What does my hon. Friend think will happen if someone already receives assistance? How will local authorities know how to implement Home Office decisions involving those who are receiving such services?

Neil Gerrard: That is a very important point. Let us consider one or two examples. Let us suppose that failed asylum seekers who fail to co-operate with their removal directions have children and have therefore received some local authority support. Even though their asylum claims have been refused, they would still be eligible for support because they have children. According to new schedule 1, if failed asylum seekers do not comply with the removal directions that have been set, their support should disappear, except for that given to their children. I do not understand how that will operate or how local authorities will acquire the information necessary to decide that those failed asylum seekers should be cut off from support.
	Let us consider someone who relies on rights under Community treaties. I have dealt with immigration and asylum casework for a good number of years, but when someone comes to see me at an advice surgery, I am often far from clear about the precise implications of Community treaties. Local authority staff who have to make decisions about whether to supply or continue support will need such knowledge. Perhaps I am getting all this wrong and there are simple answers, but I am bothered about new schedule 1 because of those concerns, although I understand the principle behind it.
	I am also far from clear about how new schedule 1 relates to other parts of the Bill. How can those who are subject to decisions made under that schedule challenge those decisions? Suppose that someone is refused on the basis that they are a citizen of another EEA state and they are not relying on a right by virtue of Community treaties, but they claim that the decision is based on wrong information. Alternatively, a failed asylum seeker who had not co-operated with removal directions might challenge that by saying that they or their representative never received such directions. That is not unknown.
	How will it be possible to challenge the decision? I cannot see how that will be done, unless it is through the mechanism of judicial review of the local authority decision. What happens to the person in the meantime if they try to go through that process? That is a complex matter, and it is difficult to comprehend quickly. I hope that we can achieve clarity with regard to those concerns about the new schedule.
	I shall say a few words about amendment No. 84, which I tabled with other hon. Members and which relates to the removal of the support-only option from the present National Asylum Support Service arrangements. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has gone through the arguments about the number of people who currently receive support only, and the reasons for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised the issue in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who was then the Minister, provided some clarification. She said that the clause was intended as an enabling power that would create the potential to move away from cash-only support. She went on to say clearly that that was not the Government's immediate intention, and that it would not make sense to implement it until the Government had managed to regionalise NASS and put more effective mechanisms in place. She added that she could foresee a time when, if the reporting system was running properly and accommodation centres were working effectively, it might be possible to consider withdrawing the cash-only option.
	A clear view emerged in the Committee that the proposal was long-term—that it would take effect only in the distant future when accommodation centres were up and running, accommodation was provided generally for all asylum seekers and there was no longer a need for cash-only support. I have always felt reassured by the then Minister's comments.
	However, I found myself having to think again about the matter. Some hon. Members may have seen a document from Downing street that found its way into the press not long ago. It referred to ending cash-only support and commented that, among other things, that would create a risk of begging and destitution in London. It also included a comment about implementation in the autumn when NASS accommodation was ready. That worried me.
	The document from Downing street may be totally inaccurate—I would much prefer the reassurances that were given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey—but amendment No. 84 introduces a safeguard. Let us assume that there will come a time when clear evidence can be provided by the Home Office that accommodation centres are working, NASS accommodation is available and cash-only support is no longer needed. If we reach that point, it should be possible for positive resolutions to be put before both Houses, which would allow us to debate and agree on the evidence. Everyone would then be much more comfortable with the provision.

Richard Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern not just about the numbers of places available in accommodation centres, but about the quality of those places? People often take cash support because NASS accommodation has been unsuitable. It would not be acceptable to withdraw cash-only support just because we have 80,000 units of accommodation and 80,000 asylum seekers, if those 80,000 units are not in the right places and of the right quality.

Neil Gerrard: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. People would opt for cash-only support for a variety of reasons. I am merely making the straightforward point that, instead of a statutory instrument, both Houses should consider positive resolutions. We might all then feel much more comfortable about a future proposal to end cash-only support. That is the purpose of amendment No. 84, which I hope will gain support in the House.

Humfrey Malins: I wonder what the Government's reaction would be if a Member were to table a new clause saying that any asylum application must be decided within two days of its being made, and that any appeal must be lodged within 24 hours and decided within a further 24 hours. I imagine that their reaction would be, "Don't be silly: people need time to prepare," and that there would be a nodding of heads all around the House. If that is the Government's attitude, God bless them for giving us what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) described as a complex new schedule and telling us that we have far less time than we would have under my fictitious new clause on asylum cases, and only a matter of hours to prepare all our arguments and to take advice from various non-governmental organisations outside the House. I am making a serious point. It is a tragedy that new, complex material is presented to the House without any of us having an opportunity to sit down and study it carefully.
	I want to speak briefly about new clause 4, which I tabled with several hon. Friends. For accommodation provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, it defines what will be regarded as adequate. I shall not read through my new clause, but its purpose is to ensure that the accommodation provided meets the basic standards that we all expect of accommodation in this country. Furthermore, it ensures that certain landlords are not able to exploit asylum seekers to make profit at the public's expense by renting out properties that cannot be rented out to the general public. A reasonable, decent standard of accommodation is important.
	The new clause cannot be thought objectionable, and I hope that the Government are prepared to accept it. They need to focus on the issue of the standard of accommodation. It is not many weeks since the controversy about the absence of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood, and there is a continuing problem with companies running removal centres and trying to negotiate insurance cover with various underwriters. All existing centres that do not have proper safety attributes, as suggested in my new clause, should be looked at carefully with a view to closure. I put the new clause out as a feeler, but, behind it, there is a strong point in relation to the adequacy of accommodation.
	We also tabled amendments Nos. 143 and 144, which relate to witnesses and costs. Proposed new section 103B of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 says:
	"The Secretary of State may pay reasonable travelling expenses incurred by an appellant"
	and amendment No. 143 would add the words "and any witnesses". Most witnesses in asylum appeals are other asylum seekers and they are often relatives who are living close to destitution. The Government accept that access to justice is important, so the expense of getting to an appeal could and should be paid for.
	The money would be well spent because it would reduce the need for the adjournment of appeals or subsequent appeals to the tribunal resulting from the fact that, through no fault of appellants or their lawyers, witnesses could not attend. It would not cost much to pay expenses to witnesses who may be destitute, and it could save money in the long term. I hope the Government will consider that suggestion carefully, as points of principle and efficiency are involved. The amendment would enable the Government to have a better and more efficient system.
	Amendment No. 144 also relates to clause 45, which says:
	"The Secretary of State may pay reasonable travelling expenses . . . in connection with attendance for the purposes of an appeal".
	The amendment would add the words "or seeking legal advice". Again, that might be money well spent. As I have said, many witnesses in appeals are other asylum seekers, and access to the appeal and to the legal advice necessary for the appeal are important. If access to justice is important, the expense of getting to lawyers to prepare the appeal could and should be paid for. That would reduce the need for the adjournments that result when appeals are not fully prepared.
	It is important for lawyers to take proof of evidence from witnesses, but I am told that that cannot always be claimed as a disbursement from the Legal Services Commission, or is not financially viable. That is especially so in Scotland where the Legal Services Commission does not operate and attendance of a person under the supervision of a solicitor is paid for at the rate of only £21 an hour.
	These small amendments are not dramatic. They would not alter the Bill in any great way, but they would ease some of the mechanisms, and at little cost to the public purse. They would probably make for more efficiency. That is the view of Conservative Members and, the Government might like to know, of several respected non-governmental organisations. I hope that Ministers will have listened carefully to my arguments on the important new clause defining the adequacy of accommodation and on the two relatively non-controversial amendments. I hope that they will take them on board.

Mike Gapes: For once, and probably for the only time in the debate, I agree with something that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has said. It is regrettable these substantive proposals were not before us in Committee. That is unfortunate, because it means that we are not able to give proper consideration to their merits.
	I wish to draw attention to the reasons why we may need some of these measures. I do not know whether any other Member saw the "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 at the weekend. It used a hidden camera to show a Romanian man who had been removed from this country. When he was at Sangatte, he made it very clear that he would return to this country with a false identity. He acquired a family and managed to return to this country after several failed attempts. The programme reported that he was living in Manchester.
	If people act in that way, it is necessary to think about how we deal with the problem. I shall not betray any confidences from my advice surgery or mention individual cases but, in my 10 years in the House as a London Member of Parliament, I have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of cases involving immigration, asylum and nationality matters. We come across a significant number of cases in which we know we have not been told the full story, and we know of occasions when people have been abusing the system.
	In the past few weeks, I have been dealing with the case of a Russian woman who applied for asylum and whose daughter came here as a visitor without revealing that she had any relatives in the UK. The woman, who had previously wanted to bring her husband into the country, divorced him and then married another man in this country so as to spin out her case for staying here. We have a corrupt immigration advice system in many areas that enables people to play the system and spin things out. As well as sorting out the legal system, we need to consider the way in which our social security and housing benefits systems are abused.
	I have fought racism and intolerance throughout my life, and many of my constituents have parents and grandparents who came here as refugees. At Valentines mansion in my constituency, there is a plaque commemorating the Belgian refugees who lived there until 1919, after they fled Belgium in the first world war. They were sheltered in Ilford. Many Jewish people live in Ilford and many people in my constituency have fled from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
	I have very many Somali constituents. It has been suggested that the introduction of the measures in the Bill will mean that people will resort to begging. I have never seen a Somali begging. Somalis do not stand at traffic lights on the north circular road with dolls or babies under their arms and intimidate motorists for money. They do not go round door to door knocking to ask for money from my constituents. That is done by organised gangs of criminals who are not asylum seekers. It is important to make that distinction, because sometimes the Daily Mail and other publications equate the issues in such a way as to create great tensions.
	I want to introduce measures that will make it possible for the Iraqi Kurds who are fleeing a desperate situation and the Somalis who need our support to receive support without the system being abused by others who come from countries in central and eastern Europe and even from countries that are applying to join the European Union and claim political asylum when we know that there is absolutely no justification for it. There may be arguments about other human rights issues and about the level of law enforcement and criminality, but political asylum is not the issue in those countries.
	It is time that those of us on the left who believe that we should be open, welcome immigration and have a diverse multicultural society were able to say loud and clear that we will not tolerate abuse and people exploiting our housing benefit and social security systems.
	I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) about the level of competency and knowledge in council departments when it comes to making judgments about housing benefit and the habitual residence test. I want to be confident that the system will be applied properly.
	Will the measures apply purely to new applications or will they apply retrospectively? I realise that we are dealing with difficult matters, but some people have been exploiting the system for years and we need to address that. If some families have been housed because they have children and we change the rules, will we face the serious problem of breaking them up? Many of my Asian constituents voice such concerns. I want to be able to tell them and others that the system will not be abused. I want to be able to reassure them that people will not take money or be housed to the detriment of those who have been waiting on housing lists and living in bad conditions for many years. However, I also want to be able to say that the measures will be applied sympathetically, carefully and, above all, accurately. I hope that the Home Office will rigorously improve the procedures within all its sections.

Mike Hancock: I apologise for missing some of the debate, but I have been in a Select Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but he has not explained what is wrong with the current system. What aspect of it has failed that allows him to depict such a graphic tale of woe?

Mike Gapes: I suspect that I would be ruled out of order if I went into that. It would certainly take longer than the time available to give a litany of what is wrong with the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate and housing benefit departments have dealt with individual cases in the past 10 years. All of us whose casework involves many immigration and nationality problems could produce dossiers, perhaps lorry loads, of cases that have not been dealt with adequately.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), the former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and my right hon. Friend Lord Rooker, with whom I had the privilege to work, have done much to improve the situation, but a great deal more needs to be done to sort out the mess in those organisations.

Jeremy Corbyn: Surely one of the problems with the new schedule and the proposals is that we are making local social services authorities an extension of the Home Office immigration service. They are already overstretched and understaffed, and have great difficulty in coping with their work load.

Mike Gapes: I do not agree. The Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948 place an obligation on local authorities to do certain things. We need to have a seamless system. The problem does not lie with the Home Office alone. All Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, operate on the same basis to achieve consistent decisions so that we have results that are not arbitrary, adverse or foolish. But I do not want to stray from the terms of the debate.
	The proposal is politically necessary. It is right to question the mechanisms. I have much sympathy with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about how Parliament should scrutinise measures. I hope that when the Bill returns from the other place—no doubt after the Tories and Liberals have ganged up to decimate it, as they do with everything that the Home Office introduces to improve things—we will have another opportunity to discuss the merits of these measures.

Hilton Dawson: I tabled two amendments in the group, new clause 17 and amendment No. 261. The new clause would allow us to take a small but important step forward, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts it. When young unaccompanied people come to this country, they are initially assessed by a local authority's social services department and should be offered accommodation by a local authority, although not necessarily the one that carries out the assessment.
	Hon. Members referred to the 6,000 unaccompanied children who are under 18 and seeking asylum. That could be considered a considerable number, but it is 10 per cent. of the 60,000 children who are looked after by local authorities and a mere fraction of the 11 million children who live in the UK. We live in the fourth richest country in the world, and we are enjoying economic success and well-being for the first time in many decades. Surely, it is not beyond our capabilities to offer good care and support to such a small number of children who arrive here alone and destitute. In many cases, they are traumatised and in a terrible condition. Too often, we offer those children bed-and-breakfast accommodation, indifference and neglect. We make them vulnerable to trafficking and further abuse.
	In the last few months of 2001, some hon. Members and I had the privilege of participating in a programme organised by UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—Save the Children and other children's organisations, called "Journey of a refugee child". It followed a visit that some of us made to Angola, the worst country that I have been to, and which certainly fits the description of the worst country for children to grow up in.
	As part of the programme, we visited some excellent projects in London. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) will recall our visit to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Unfortunately, it took place on Guy Fawkes night, so rockets and bangers were going off all around us while we sat in a room with many young people who had gone through the worst experiences that any human being could—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is limited time for this debate? I am not sure that I can connect his reminiscences directly with the new clause to which he is speaking, which refers to asylum-seeking children rather than those who might potentially seek asylum.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief, but I am trying to set out the profound needs of asylum-seeking children who come to this country, compared with the inadequate services that we currently offer them.

Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said about the Medical Foundation, which does fantastic work in supporting unaccompanied children seeking asylum. Is he not concerned, however, as I am, that support for asylum seekers increasingly comes from charitable and voluntary organisations that receive public funding that is insufficient to deal with their casework? The problem with new schedule 1 is that it will probably increase the pressure on the charitable sector because the state will be withdrawing from provision.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the issue that I try to address in new clause 17. If young people were offered accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, instead of the limited support available to them under section 17 of that Act, they would experience a good level of public sector care. They would undergo proper and thorough assessment by professional people, and they would be properly looked after, as children who come to this country should be. There is no reason why every local authority should not tackle this issue.
	In the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Government strengthened section 20 of the Children Act, making even more powerful the argument that young asylum seekers should have the benefit of support up to the age of 21. Indeed, the experience of many who work with young asylum seekers is that they are hungry for the education opportunities that are available. Having demonstrated resilience in undergoing dreadful experiences, they should benefit from the support provided under the 2000 Act for people in higher education up to the age of 24.
	During the proceedings on the Adoption and Children Bill, I tried to strengthen section 17 of the Children Act. I was assured by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), that more work was being done to ensure that local authorities carry out proper assessments under section 17. I accept that that is true for children from the United Kingdom who, even if their links with their birth families have broken, may have links with an extended family, with their community or with friendship networks that can support them.
	However, Section 17 provisions are not appropriate for unaccompanied children who arrive in this country without any of those forms of support. We should offer them the opportunity to be looked after properly by local authorities. So often in the Chamber we hear criticism of local authorities and the care system, and in many cases it is justified, but there are good parts to the system. There is good foster care and good residential care, and a great deal could be offered to young people from abroad. We should have the confidence to deliver that.
	Amendment No. 261 relates to measures to deny families with children the protection offered by section 17 of the Children Act. Frankly, that is deplorable. The issue was discussed in proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, and an amendment was passed to prevent such a provision being implemented. Section 17 is a fundamental building block in the support and care that we offer families with children in particularly difficult circumstances. It goes far beyond the provisions of asylum Acts and mere financial benefits. As an hon. Member said earlier, children are children, wherever they come from, and we should not exempt the children of asylum-seeking families from the Children Act.

Beverley Hughes: We have had a wide-ranging debate, although I accept that, judging by the comments made by some hon. Members about new clause 10 and new schedule 1, it has not been as wide ranging as they would have liked. No doubt additional points will be made in another place and again when the Bill returns to this House.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) did not go into detail about his amendments to new schedule 1, but I should like to comment on them for the record. Several of those amendments seek to ensure that the rights of individuals and rights granted by the European convention on human rights and EU law are safeguarded. When the hon. Gentleman has time to look at the new schedule in some detail, he will see that it specifically safeguards those rights.
	As I said earlier, most of the amendments seek to reinstate the support that the measures propose to withdraw, so they are simply in complete opposition to the Bill.

Richard Allan: The hon. Lady will accept our concern, which we tried to express earlier, that although we understand that the Government want to deal with a specific instance—that of an individual with refugee status who comes to live in a community in the UK—we believe that the issue goes much wider. When we are talking about the rights of every citizen of every other EEA state, we are talking about social security legislation that should be dealt with in the round, but it has been inappropriately tacked on to immigration law. We have tried to express that general concern in our amendments, but it was difficult, in such a short time, to deal with the generality of EU social security law, which is a huge and complex subject.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may take that position. However, I take him back to a principle that I outlined earlier. We have to consider whether it is perverse to allow people who cannot draw on central Government sources of support because they have support in another country, they have reached the end of the road in our procedures for assessing asylum seekers, or they have illegally entered the country, to get support from other sources at a local level. The issue is a difficult one, and I know that if the measures are implemented, all hon. Members—including me, as a constituency MP—will face difficult constituency cases. However, I still feel strongly that we cannot duck the difficult issues. There are important points of principle to be dealt with and we as MPs have to represent many different constituencies of people.
	Having made those general comments on the proposed amendments to new schedule 1, I acknowledge that we have to work through a great deal of the detail of the implementation of the new schedule. My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and others asked about those details. The law surrounding these issues is complex and the operation of the measures will, to some extent and in some areas, also be complex. I anticipate that when the measures are enacted, whatever form they take, considerable guidance and regulations will be required to help local authorities to implement them. However, I do not accept the view that the measures are about foisting on local authorities decisions that should be made by the immigration service, as one of my hon. Friends said they were. The decisions will be made by the Home Office, the immigration service and the immigration and nationality directorate, but implementation, in so far as it has implications for local authority support, will clearly and rightly be for the local authorities to carry out.

Mike Hancock: It is useful that the Minister recognises that there will be additional tasks for local authorities. Will she give the House and, more importantly, local authorities an assurance that the Government will resource local authorities properly to pick up that obligation?

Beverley Hughes: No. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman thinks though the implications of the measures, the points I made at the start of my speech and those made during the debate, he will realise that local authorities have been providing support—and some continue to do so—to people whom the measures that we are dealing with will say are no longer entitled to that support. The measures are about removing that responsibility and the burden that that responsibility generates for local authorities, thereby considerably reducing the cost. I understand that before it took forward its recent case, Birmingham estimated that it had spent £2.6 million—I hope that I have remembered that figure correctly—on providing support that the measures before the House will allow local authorities legally to claim is not their responsibility. They will be able to say that, for specific reasons, it is not legal for them to give support. Therefore, the cost and the burden for local authorities will be reduced. None the less, I accept that the technical detail of the measures' implementation at local level will require local authorities to be given guidance and regulation, and we intend to provide that.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) raised the question of non-NASS-supported asylum seekers who are sent to another part of the country but then return to London—it is usually London—to live. They receive no housing support but vouchers only, and they often live in terrible poverty with other similarly destitute families. Is there any discretion for local authorities to give such people any support?

Beverley Hughes: Under the measures that we are debating, that would depend on the immigration status of the individual. That is the provision that the measures introduce into existing arrangements. Currently, local authorities do not take immigration status into account; the measures will require them to do so.
	New clause 4 deals with the standard of housing of asylum seekers who are currently within the NASS system. Hon. Members expressed concern about substandard accommodation. If there were to be substandard accommodation, I would share their concern. Such issues are the reason why contracts with both private and public sector accommodation providers already require that the accommodation provided must be fit for human habitation as defined by the Housing Act 1985, or in Scotland by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, and that it must meet all the regulatory requirements.
	It is reasonable to expect the Government to take reasonable steps to ensure that the accommodation they use is satisfactory, but to do as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey seems to want—that is, to place a requirement on the Secretary of State directly to ensure statutory compliance—is neither reasonable nor feasible, given the large amount of housing that is needed and the fact that it is obtained under contract from both the public and the private sector. It is reasonable that the first route to achieving good accommodation standards is through contractual arrangements and the enforcement of those requirements where it is shown that they have not been met.
	NASS carries out property inspections. Its contract managers carry out technical surveys of properties and they can get outside professional surveyors to do so as well. When accommodation is found to be below standard, the provider is required to take steps to remedy the problems; otherwise, they risk being found in breach of their contract. Local authorities, too, have a general duty under section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 to keep housing conditions in their area under annual review. Although we accept the spirit of the new clause and what the hon. Gentleman intends to achieve by it, the mechanisms proposed are not reasonable or feasible, and its aims can be accommodated within existing arrangements.
	New clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), deals with the arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My hon. Friend has great expertise in and a strong commitment to all matters relating to children, so I understand why he has raised the issue. However, he will know that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are currently supported under the Children Act 1989. That means that, in practice, they are the responsibility of the local authority where they first present themselves and are accepted as children in need. It also means—I know that he is aware of this, as it is the point of his new clause—that there is currently no legal framework through which any other local authority can be compelled to accept responsibility for such a child, although authorities can voluntarily transfer cases between themselves.
	My hon. Friend will understand why it is not in those children's interests for us to have the power to compel other local authorities to take them. We would need to ensure first that those other authorities had the necessary infrastructure and experience to provide good quality care. However, the Department of Health and the Home Office are working extremely hard with local authorities to negotiate voluntary arrangements, and I hope he agrees that that is the best way to proceed. Compelling local authorities could result in children being placed in areas that provided a range and quality of care that did not serve the children's best interests. I hope that he will not press his amendments, with the assurance that I understand the spirit of what he is trying to achieve. I hope that he accepts that although we are not changing the legislation, we are working to try to achieve what he seeks.

Humfrey Malins: Will the Minister take the opportunity before 7 o'clock to speak to my two amendments and my new clause?

Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will not intervene on me any further, I shall try to deal with all the issues that have been raised.

Hilton Dawson: I shall be very brief. I entirely accept the point that my hon. Friend makes and I am very pleased with the information that she has given to me. However, there is the further question of encouragement to use section 20 of the Children Act 1989 rather than section 17.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend needs to understand that the vast majority of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are about 16 and 17, so they are not very young. There is certainly no intention to deprive children of section 20 support if they need it. The fact is that for the needs of many, if not most, of those older young people, section 17 support is more appropriate, because they do not want to live in children's homes and supported accommodation. As he will know, young people's wishes are an important element in the overall assessment of need. It is that assessment that determines the level of support, and when section 20 support is appropriate it will be provided.
	My hon. Friend also spoke to amendment No. 261. If he will forgive me, I shall not dwell on that amendment, in view of the time. The substance of the proposal was debated extensively in terms of the procedures in the 1989 Act. I know he feels strongly about the point of principle that is involved, but with the establishment of a new system of support for asylum seekers, it was felt to be more appropriate that that system also provided for asylum-seeking children in families.
	The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised issues in respect of amendments Nos. 143 and 144 that were debated extensively in Committee. I understand his concerns in tabling the amendments, but between the Committee stage and now, we have not changed our view or become convinced that asylum seekers who are appealing against refusal or early termination of their support need access to legal advice or assistance and representation. I can tell him, however, that amendment No. 143 is unnecessary, because the current arrangements already allow for the provision of forms of support other than those specified in section 96(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 when circumstances are exceptional. The power is a permissive one. It would not be reasonable to pay witness expenses in every case, but the legislation contains a power to do so where necessary.
	The substance of amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 was also debated in Committee. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey knows we believe very strongly that, although personal preference will be one factor in placing asylum seekers in one place or another—accommodation centres or other forms of dispersal—it will not be the predominating factor. He received assurances in Committee about the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account.
	Amendment No. 49 concerns the power sought in the Bill to enable the Government to remove the opportunity for cash-only support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, this is an enabling power. We do not envisage taking the power in the short term. We want to see how the Bill's reforms impact; there may be no need to mobilise the power at all, so I ask the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey not to press the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I asked the Minister not only about the time scale, but about the cost that would be involved if the support-only option were removed. Can she share with the House any information on costs to show how it will be cheaper for the Government to spend the money on support and accommodation, instead of only on support?

Beverley Hughes: That brings me to amendment No. 84. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made clear—there was an extensive debate in Committee about this matter—we would consider the evidence on all sides if any proposal were made to exercise the power in the part of the Bill with which the amendment deals. I am persuaded by him that if the Government decided to bring forward the power, it would be right for the matter to be debated through the affirmative procedure. I hope he will accept that the wording of his amendments needs to be checked by parliamentary counsel, but I assure him that we will table a suitably worded amendment to the same effect when the Bill comes before the other place.
	With the exception of the issues on which hon. Members have said that they want a Division, I hope that they will agree not to press their amendments.

Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I shall speak for 30 seconds—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the House is willing, the hon. Gentleman may continue, but he certainly has no right to do so.

Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House. I am grateful for the Minister's indication that there will be a further opportunity to vote on the removal of support and that we can return to the debate on that matter. For the information of the House, I should like to point out that we hold to our view that for reasons of time and detailed policy, we are not persuaded that we should support the new clause and the new schedule that goes with it. When the time comes, not least because there are new clauses that we have not debated at all, such as new clause 13 and others, we will ask the House to divide on the rest of the Government new clauses, because they contain certain provisions that we cannot possibly accept.

Question put, That the new clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 456, Noes 69.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [11 June].
	Question put, That Government new clauses 12, 13 and 16 and new schedules 1 and 2 be added to the Bill:—
	The House divided: Ayes 454, Noes 62.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Naturalisation: knowledge of language and society

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	'( ) In paragraph 2(e) of that Schedule (waiver)—
	(a) for "the requirement specified in paragraph 1(1)(c)" there shall be substituted "either or both of the requirements specified in paragraph 1(1)(c) and (ca)", and
	(b) for "expect him to fulfil it" there shall be substituted "expect him to fulfil that requirement or those requirements".'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Deprivation of citizenship

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 2, line 42, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".
	No. 19, in page 3, line 5, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".
	No. 88, in page 3, line 11, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".
	No. 21, in page 3, line 23, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 10
	 — 
	Right of abode: certificate of entitlement

Amendment made: No. 213, in page 7, line 13, at end insert—
	'( ) specify the consequences of failure to comply with a requirement under any of paragraphs (c) to (e) above,'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 38
	 — 
	Destitute asylum-seeker

Amendments made: No. 217, in page 19, line 20, that Clause 38 be divided into 3 clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (6) (Destitute asylum-seeker), the second consisting of subsections (7) to (11) and (15) (Section (Destitute asylum-seeker): supplemental), the third consisting of subsections (12) to (14) and (16) to (19) (Section (Destitute asylum-seeker): supplemental: Scotland and Northern Ireland)
	No. 216, in page 19, line 25, at end insert—
	'( ) who is in the United Kingdom,'.
	No. 254, in page 20, line 12, at end insert "both".
	No. 255, in page 20, line 16, at end insert "both".—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 45
	 — 
	Asylum-seeker: appeal against refusal to support

Amendment made: No. 218, in page 25, line 34, at end insert—
	'( ) An appeal under this section may not be brought or continued by a person who is outside the United Kingdom.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 49
	 — 
	Detention by Secretary of State

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 27, line 34, after "10" insert ", 10A".
	No. 104, in page 28, line 48, at end insert—
	'( ) In section 24(1) of that Act (bail) after "the Immigration Act 1971" insert ", or under section 49 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,".—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 50
	 — 
	Escorts

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 29, line 9, after "by", insert "reasonable".—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 57
	 — 
	Serious criminal

Amendments made: No. 249, in page 34, line 4, at end insert—
	'of at least two years—
	(i) '.
	No. 250, in page 34, line 6, leave out "but does include" and insert—
	'(unless at least two years of the sentence are not suspended),
	(ii) includes'.
	No. 251, in page 34, line 7, at end insert—
	', and
	(iii) includes a reference to a person who is sentenced to an indeterminate period of custody (provided that it may last for two years).'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 97
	 — 
	Leave pending decision on variation application

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in page 51, line 34, after "66(1)", insert—
	'of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 240, 241, 208 to 212 and 248.

Rosie Winterton: These are mainly minor and technical amendments, but it might help if I run through them briefly in a little more detail—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Rosie Winterton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the Minister please resume her seat while I am on my feet? I am trying to restore peace for her. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please retire quickly and quietly?

Rosie Winterton: New clause 13 and new schedule 2 make provision relating to changes to the civil penalty and carriers' liability. Amendments Nos. 210, 211 and 212 to schedule 7 are minor and consequential amendments necessitated by new clause 13 and new schedule 2.
	The exception is the amendment to section 37(3)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which addresses a non-binding concern of the Court of Appeal in Roth. It strengthens the rights of an applicant seeking the release of a detained vehicle by removing the requirement for them to have a "compelling need" for its release.
	Amendment No. 208 repeals section 25A(7) of the 1971 Act, which is being renumbered as section 25D. Section 25A relates to the detention of ships, aircraft and vehicles in connection with offences of assisting illegal entry and harbouring. Subsection (7) is no longer necessary, as the definition of an owner is being added to the interpretation section by new clause 12.
	Amendment No. 209 repeals references in section 28A of the 1971 Act to powers of arrest when a person is suspected of having committed an offence under the present section 25(2) of the Act. Section 25(2) is being repealed, and the new section 25(2) will not contain a separate offence. These repeals follow from that.
	On amendment No. 248, hon. Members will recall that we discussed yesterday new clauses 14 and 15. Non-suspensive appeal rights will come into force on Royal Assent as a result of those new clauses, but the other provisions of part 5 will come into force at a later date. Therefore, there will be a transitional period while part IV of the 1999 Act continues to operate at the same time as the new non-suspensive system. Amendment No. 248 amends part IV so that there is no conflict between the new and old systems.
	Amendments Nos. 239 to 241 correct a drafting error. Clause 97 introduces a new version of section 3C of the 1971 Act to extend a person's leave while their application is outstanding. However, the clause lacks references to the Act that is being referred to. I am amazed that Opposition Members—especially the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who has a reputation for spotting these problems—did not notice that and table such an amendment themselves.
	Having given that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 240, in page 51, line 38, at end insert "of that Act)."
	No. 241, in page 52, line 1, leave out—
	'the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002'
	and insert "that Act)."—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 101
	 — 
	Authority to carry

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 53, line 20, leave out clause 101.
	We have more enthusiasm for this amendment than the Government had for their last amendments. It would leave out clause 101, which is the only clause dealing with the authority-to-carry scheme. Two provisions in the Bill relate to carriers' liability and involvement in immigration control. Sadly, as a result of the earlier guillotine, new clause 13 and Government new schedule 2, which deal with carriers' liability, were not debated. Like me, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) regrets that, because those provisions raised substantial issues of interest to hon. Members and to commercial operators and their employees, and have been the subject of significant decisions by the courts, one of which resulted in the Government introducing legislation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) shows her assent. It is a great pity that the only debate we can have about carriers is on clause 101.

Humfrey Malins: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. A number of outside bodies, including the Road Haulage Association, have worked flat out and diligently not just in the past few days but in the past few hours, to ensure that their views are put. They will be as disappointed as we are that the House was not able to hear their views.

Simon Hughes: Indeed, that is a frustration. When the hon. Gentleman and I were, quite properly, asked by Government Whips before the spring break what might be an appropriate balance for the debate, within constraints which we did not accept but which we knew the Government would impose, one of the problems was that we did not have sight of the new schedules and new clauses.
	In Committee, we had an interesting debate on clause 101, during which new policy was revealed with almost every minute that passed. By the end of the debate it was clear that the Bill did not say anything about the subject, and clause 101 is limited in that it merely gives a sketch of the scheme that might apply. It provides for regulations to be introduced subsequently when an authority-to-carry scheme is brought before Parliament, so we will have the opportunity to debate the issue under secondary legislation. We learned far more about what the Government had in mind than we had known before.
	My hon. Friends and I are unhappy that the Government are clearly set on replacing conventional immigration controls—which there have to be and which we accept and agree with—with a new form of control, but without the same safeguards as when immigration officers, those working for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office in our overseas missions, the police, and Customs and Excise officers working as agents on our borders and in our ports, act to enforce immigration and related matters. In theory at least, the current system provides the possibility of challenging an Executive decision through administrative review, an adjudicator and a tribunal. Had the Bill not been amended adversely yesterday, every case could have gone back into the legal system for judgment by an independent judicial authority.
	I shall sketch out what the Government are proposing and explain my objections. I do not intend to take long, as I am conscious that we have to fit in three substantive debates with votes between now and 9 o'clock when the guillotine falls. That shows the impossibility of the task that we have been given.
	The scheme will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require a carrier that brings someone to the United Kingdom without the required authority to pay a penalty. That transfers significant responsibility, including financial responsibility, to carriers. There is a big question over whether that should be the case.
	When I was in Sangatte, I talked to the Eurostar people about the Eurotunnel operation. They were pleased that the Government had decided that they should not continue to be penalised when, despite the company's best efforts, people get on to vehicles that come across the channel. Eurostar had put in place heat-detecting and X-ray equipment. It had done everything reasonably possible, and had spent millions of pounds. I observed for myself that security at the Eurotunnel and Eurostar depot was far more effective than at the SNCF depot on the adjacent tracks, which is the responsibility of the French Government. I understand the anger prompted by the continuing incursion into cross-channel traffic, given that the operators who seek to make a living have done a great deal themselves. It is not as though they have not done things that cost them money, and have not had to pass the cost on to users of the service they provide.
	This is how I assume the proposal is intended to work. As I have been to Japan, I shall use it as an example. Having bought a ticket, the traveller goes to a Japanese airport. As he goes to check in, he suddenly discovers that his unacceptability as a passenger has been flagged up on the airline operator's screen. He will not be told why he is not acceptable—the information that is held will not have been divulged—but the airline will have a method of checking with the British authorities whether he should be allowed on the plane. In theory, if other Governments pass similar legislation it will be possible for airlines to check with their authorities.
	What redress would there be? Let us suppose that the traveller wishing to return from Japan happened to be a Member of Parliament who had to be here to do his or her duty the following day. There would probably be no redress if that was not possible.
	Let us imagine that the traveller was from India, wanting to attend a wedding here—an occasion like the wedding reception I attended on Sunday evening. If when that person checked in on Saturday he was told he was unacceptable, he would not be able to do anything, apart from going to the British mission in India, which would not be open until the next working day. By definition, the reason for the flight would then be aborted, as would be the cost.
	That system strikes me as entirely wrong. I recognise that it is better than a system that would give a junior employee of British Airways, or any other airline, information on why Sir Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Miss Rosie Winterton or Mr. Simon Hughes was not an acceptable passenger. Of course I would not want such information to be given. I see that the hon. Member for Woking is glad that I did not include him on that list! I was trying to be fair; if I excluded Conservatives, I did not do so on purpose.
	I appreciate that we would not want junior members of staff, or any other members of staff in private companies, to know something that might or might not be true, or for suspicions to be entertained about anyone. Understandably, someone travelling to a wedding, or indeed to a political rally—or someone who might have a previous conviction, or might be suspected of having a link with an organisation that might be considered unacceptable—might not want the information to be shared. What I do not consider acceptable is the effective replacement of a system whereby immigration control deals with such matters, through a proper process, with a system—totally unexplained in the Bill—involving an administrative block run by a computer link with the Home Office, or at any rate the British Government. Against that, it appears, there would be an appeal system of an unspecified nature—we know nothing about it, beyond the fact that the Minister says it will exist—and a compensation scheme which will operate if the Government get it wrong.
	Let me give a real example. Let us suppose that, owing to a blip in the system, the person whose name had come up and shown her to be an "undesirable" was Miss Beverley Hughes. Let us imagine that it should have been Mr. Simon Hughes. In that event, Miss Beverley Hughes would rightly be aggrieved: she might find that the purpose of her visit had been entirely undermined. I do not think it would be easy to compensate her. I do not think it would have been enough for her to be told subsequently that she could have her money back, if the purpose of the visit had been aborted.
	Mistakes do happen. I can give a parallel, although not similar, example. When I went to vote in a local election, a line had been put through my name on the electoral register. An inquiry revealed that the person whose name was above mine on the register had applied for a postal vote, and the line had been put through the wrong name. These things happen, and there is no immediate remedy.

Richard Allan: Is my hon. Friend also worried about the establishment of identity? Airlines and other carriers will now have to collect far more personal information that is not relevant to the purpose of travel—for instance, dates of birth, which are not normally collected on application for a ticket. "Simon Hughes" on its own will not be enough; date of birth, perhaps an address, and all sorts of other personal data will be required under the authority-to-carry scheme.

Simon Hughes: By implication, that is certainly a risk. My hon. Friend is more of an expert than most of us on those matters, which will arise later in another context, and he has made a very good point—but I now want to make a political point, Sir Alan—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is confused. The House is not in Committee; the Bill is on Report.

Simon Hughes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Let me make my political point. Let us imagine that last year, a person was travelling from Zimbabwe. The flight was with a nationalised airline, Air Zimbabwe. The person at the Air Zimbabwe desk, where there were also customs officers, police and so forth, noted that the traveller was, according to the airline, not acceptable. It is surely pretty obvious that the authorities in the country from which the traveller sought to leave would be alerted immediately that there might be something suspicious—and that could be replicated in any country, at any time, when someone tried to leave that country. Under this scheme, it will be possible to trigger a refusal to allow a journey that has been lawfully purchased, and for no explanation to be given at the time in a way that could protect people.
	The Government have not thought through their proposals. We seem to be saying that we are willing to help people who are fleeing from persecution, while being prepared to do exactly the opposite—to alert the authorities in countries where personal liberty and safety may be at severe risk. I want to hear the Government's explanation of how that problem could be avoided, because I cannot see how it could be.
	I understand that this has, in a sense, been happening recently in one part of the world. The British authorities have, I think, placed Home Office officials at Prague airport to monitor those coming in, in order to prevent a large-scale arrival in the UK of Romany visitors, or Roma people, from the Czech Republic or further east. As I have not been to Prague recently, I have no first-hand experience; I can only relate what I have been told. I understand that there is at least some evidence of pretty crude discrimination on the basis of ethnicity with regard to who should be allowed and who should not, which has had a disproportionate effect on members of a certain ethnic group—people of Roma origin. I gather on good advice from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that a court case challenging the procedure is imminent, if it has not already been instigated.
	The really big policy issue is this: we are setting up a whole overall network of different immigration control networks in the public and private sectors, at home and abroad, that are not open to the scrutiny that we would expect in the case of such important decisions.
	The Bill is, substantively, about three things: nationality—not a matter for this debate—asylum and immigration. I assume we are trying to say that we still uphold people's right to seek asylum here. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made a telling observation in an earlier debate about people who were accepted here during the civil war in Spain, and who have been grateful ever since.
	I note that the Westminster Hall exhibition of Low cartoons includes a cartoon from a February 1947 edition of the Evening Standard. It depicts a British worker reading his newspaper and complaining about "all these immigrants" arriving. Standing behind him are the ghosts of the Saxons, Goths, Vikings and others who—if our history is correct—made up the British race. We are in great danger of undermining the spirit of the refugee convention. If people find it impossible to leave their countries, it will by definition be impossible for them to make a case for asylum in another country.
	The clause will introduce a visa regime without safeguards. The Minister asked me in Committee whether I would prefer a system of visa control, and in many ways I would. At least everybody would then know where they stand. I realise that such a system might prove over-bureaucratic, and that problems would arise in terms of people visiting for weekends, bank holidays and other public holidays. However, at least they would be within the system, rather than outwith it. Unless we are persuaded by the Minister's reply, I therefore hope that hon. Members of all parties will join me in voting to remove clause 101 from the Bill. If we cannot remove a system that would give responsibility to carriers, and establish instead an alternative visa control system, we should at least allow the House of Lords to come back with a more acceptable proposal.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as there are other matters that need to be discussed. I was a Member of the House in 1987, when the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill, the forerunner of clause 101, was passed. The motive behind that Bill was to prevent people who wanted to seek political asylum in this country or elsewhere in western Europe from fleeing places where they felt unsafe, and in which the danger was clear. It coincided with an increase in the number of Tamil people seeking political asylum from Sri Lanka, and with similar efforts on the part of many other countries in which political tension was increasing.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is correct: what lies behind this development is akin to the privatisation of immigration control. In reality, it denies a considerable number of people—their wish to apply for asylum in another country may well be entirely genuine and well-founded—the opportunity to get near enough to an airline desk to pursue that application. If we think back to the situation in Chile before 1990, the question of whether a political person fleeing Chile merited asylum would now be judged not by due process in this country, but by an airline clerk who would be frightened that the airline would be fined £1,000 for bringing in a passenger who would subsequently have to be removed. In fact, enormous pressure was indeed put on the desk staff of British airlines around the world not to allow people about whom they had the slightest suspicion to travel.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a good point when he cited the example of Zimbabwe. In many other countries—Iran and Iraq, for example—someone could get as far as the airport to buy a ticket, only to be deterred from travelling by a clerk who knew nothing about the reality of the law and the justice of the claim, and who might well be a stooge of the police or the governing regime. That clerk could then deny them the right to travel, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, if the police are observing them, they would be put in considerable danger.
	Clause 101 is symptomatic of the paranoia that is sweeping Europe about people who seek political asylum. We live in a world that, for many people, is dangerous, divided and frightening. They regard the Geneva convention as their one hope. If we extend such controls and decision making to faraway airports, we will be comfortably ignorant of the facts. The reality is that some people put themselves at enormous risk merely by trying to exercise the rights that the United Nations convention has conferred in the countries that are signatories to it, of which we are indeed one.
	In her response, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the impact of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act and on the entire process, and that she will think again about the provision and the advice given to airline staff, which denies people their valuable human rights.

Humfrey Malins: I want briefly to raise with the Minister a couple of matters relating to the authority-to-carry scheme that I discussed in Committee. I appreciate that she was not in her post at that time. I mentioned two rail trips that were causing some concern: the twice-weekly Bourg St. Maurice ski-train, and the Disney train. In both cases, when one purchases a ticket there is a Schengen exit check, but no UK check. I mention these matters now because the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), kindly said in Committee that she would ensure that we were in a position to respond to any sudden clandestine activity. If the Minister has no information to hand, I should be happy for her to write to me.
	A connected matter is the critical position concerning exits from France. As Minister may know, there is at most one decent, working heartbeat detector machine for Calais and Coquelles. There is simply insufficient investment over there, and the same applies to Dover. The Minister must understand that, whatever her polices in relation to carriers' liability and the authority to carry, only one lorry in every 100 is checked at Dover, and there is only one heartbeat detector machine. Because it is not being used properly by certain Dover authorities, it has broken down and that had to be repaired on several occasions. Far greater investment in machinery is needed, not just at Dover but on the other side of the channel.
	Those are small points that are really Committee points, and I am sorry to return to them, but the former Minister was kind enough to say in Committee that they would be considered. I should be glad to be told of developments in due course.

Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, the amendment would remove clause 101, which establishes an enabling power that allows for the making of regulations to establish the authority-to-carry scheme. However, removing that power would prevent the immigration and nationality directorate from embracing the potential of new technology, and deny us the opportunity to screen passengers better before they embark for the UK. There is an important point here. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the details of such passengers would be checked against data held by the Home Office, to discover whether they posed any known security or immigration threat. There is therefore no possibility of the carriers themselves, or anyone associated with them, having any idea of the information on which a decision would be based. All that the carrier would get would be a yes or no answer to the question whether it has the authority to carry the person in question.
	The second important point is that the provision involves no decision as to whether the requirements of immigration rules are met. The provision is not concerned with immigration control in any shape or form. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it is also in no sense a transfer or privatisation, as he termed it, of immigration control. In that regard, it has no implications. Nor does it delegate, as my hon. Friend maintained, any decision making to clerks or carriers. It is important that people understand that point.

Jeremy Corbyn: If the authorities in this country say to Iranian Airlines, for example, that person X is not likely to be admitted here for terrorist or immigration reasons, will not that give some important information to a state-owned airline in a country whose human rights record is patchy? It could have implications for the person's family, especially if he or she has family in this country who are applying for asylum.

Beverley Hughes: No reasons, be they terrorist or immigration-related, would be given to the carriers. They would simply be told whether they had the authority to bring the person to the UK. I understand well the point that my hon. Friend makes, but he and others need to consider my point: if the Home Office has information that suggests that someone is an immigration or security risk—perhaps he or she is travelling on a false passport or some information is known about his or her activities that raises concerns—is it right that we should allow that person on to an aircraft? That is the difficult decision that we have to face. If we have such information, is it right to allow that person to be carried to this country, with whatever consequences that might have? The Government contend—it may be a point of difference between us that we cannot bridge—that it would be wrong and irresponsible to tell a carrier that it can carry such a person even though we have unanswered questions about the security risk that he or she presents.

Richard Allan: Will the Minister clarify the nature of the schemes proposed? They could vary from a narrow database that accurately defined individuals who posed a security risk to a blanket ruling that all Angolans travelling from Portugal are a risk because a passport scam is going on. In other words, schemes could be very specific or much more general. Will the schemes address specific individuals or classes of individuals?

Beverley Hughes: We would need to have further discussions about the regulations, but my understanding—I have read the Committee report in detail and received further advice from officials—is that the schemes will be concerned with individuals. To be fair, I must add that that point was made by Ministers in Committee. Data will be presented by individuals to the carriers and the stored information against which the data will be checked will be about individuals. The authority-to-carry scheme would be authorised in particular areas, but the process of identification would be on an individual basis.

Simon Hughes: Does the Minister not realise the dangerous direction in which these provisions could lead the world? For example, two years ago the Government of Sri Lanka could have told the British Government that they did not want our carriers to allow on to a plane in London anybody who might support the Tamil separatist movement. Someone could be prevented from flying to the US on the basis of the sort of dodgy information that has resulted in people being banged up in Belmarsh prison but then released by the courts because they had no case to answer. Relying on state information to stop people leaving countries is a very different ball game from relying on the duty of the British state to stop people coming into our country. It should not be our job to try to rule the world or to let other people try to rule the world outside their own territorial boundaries.

Beverley Hughes: The information against which a person's details would be checked would be the information held by our Home Office, not information that another Government had requested us to use. I accept that that point does not remove all the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but we have to strike a balance. The answer depends on judgments about what we should do when we have information about people and know the serious consequences that can arise from carrying people, especially in aircraft, who might be a security risk. The Government's judgment is that we have a duty and responsibility to consider refusing authority to carry when we are concerned that somebody poses a security or immigration threat.
	I may not be able to bridge the gap between the Government and some hon. Members on this point, but I shall try to deal with some of the questions of detail in case that gives them some comfort. The Minister in Committee gave an open response to the concerns expressed and made it clear that the regulations would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and transparent. Attempts would also be made to provide sufficient remedy in the regulations for any passenger refused under the scheme to challenge the decision or the data on which it was based. We can discuss the nature of the remedy, but we might be able to provide a hotline through which cases of mistaken identity or wrong information could be checked. We do not have a closed mind about remedies, and hon. Members have already been assured that we will wish to consider, where possible, speedy remedies that will offset the potential disadvantage to people of not being able to board a plane at a certain time.

Richard Allan: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gave an example in which a person missed an event of great importance because they had been refused permission to board a flight. Does the Minister accept that in such cases of error it will be difficult to assign the blame to individual airline staff or to the Home Office? Given that the Home Office will require the airlines to implement the scheme, does she accept that the Home Office should pick up compensation claims? A hotline will not help an individual who has missed the event to which they were intending to travel.

Beverley Hughes: I make no commitment in relation to compensation per se, but if a carrier acts on the basis of information provided by the Home Office, it will not be liable for the consequences of implementing the decision. I return to the need to strike a balance on this issue. The example was given of a trip to attend a wedding. It may be that the remedy for a person—that is, attending the wedding—is not available if the authority to carry is denied. No matter how quickly the information could be checked, we might not be able to put that right. However, the alternative proposed by the Liberal Democrats—a visa scheme—could have unnecessary disadvantages for many more people. The imposition of a visa scheme on everybody in a country, as opposed to an authority-to-carry scheme that would identify only those individuals about whom concerns were felt, is another important and difficult question of balance. We do not want to impose visa regimes where they are not necessary. That would be an imposition on a whole population. The authority-to-carry scheme gives the option that individuals can be checked. Some people, such as those involved in the wedding to which reference has been made, may suffer irredeemable consequences, but that possibility has to be balanced against the consequences if a whole population had to go through a bureaucratic process to obtain a visa.
	I might be able to give the House some comfort on some of the details. A question was asked concerning the type of personal data that would be requested, and whether the requirements would extend to sources of personal information that are not sought currently. I assure the House that addressees would not be asked for that sort of data. The information requested would be confined to the person's name, date of birth, gender and nationality, and the nature of the travel document involved. As I understand it, people seeking leave to travel have to give exactly that information now.
	Concerns have been raised about asylum seekers. Authority-to-carry schemes are designed to identify people thought to pose an immigration or security threat. Almost by definition, they would not normally be people who had been to the UK before. Unless a first-time asylum seeker was known to present a threat for some other reason, he or she would not fall foul, almost by definition, of the authority-to-carry scheme. It is unlikely that there would be any information at all on such people. Why would there be?

Jeremy Corbyn: If a member of the family of a person in this country who has sought political asylum here applies to fly to Britain, will he or she be tagged on the system as a person likely not to be admitted, or will that person be allowed to come here?

Beverley Hughes: I have made it clear that the information needed to give a yes or no answer to carriers would be that which suggests that there is or is not an immigration or security threat. Relatives of people who come here legally and declare themselves to be asylum seekers so that a claim can be handled in the normal way would clearly not pose an immigration threat. It may be a different matter when it comes to people who come here illegally, but in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend I see no reason to believe that there would be an immigration threat.
	This issue raises some difficult questions about balance. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said. I hope that he is persuaded by the points that I have made about the detail of the scheme and about the extent to which we want to get it right so that we can reduce to a minimum the negative consequences for individuals. On balance, we think that the authority-to-carry scheme is preferable to an all-out visa scheme. For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he presses it to a vote, I hope that the House will support the Government's proposal.

Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her courteous reply. We are talking about new ideas, so there are many unanswered questions. The proposal has not been thought through or prepared sufficiently, although I do not dissent from what she has said.
	I mentioned the option of establishing a visa system, but that is only one alternative. I shall offer another. If the Government had information leading them to believe that certain people thought to be in Pakistan or Iraq, for instance, would not be accepted here, they could use the normal channels and communicate the matter to the authorities in that country. That is what happens now, and it would mean that the Home Office and immigration authorities, the police and the internal administration system could intervene if they wanted to and if they thought the person involved would get leave to come here and pose a threat.
	If a person has a criminal past or a history of being what the Minister called an immigration threat—a phrase to which I shall return—or, more importantly, a security threat, liaison with agencies such as MI5, MI6, Interpol and others would offer other ways in which to handle the matter. That would be better than using commercial operators to tell people that they would not be able to travel.
	Secondly, if the Government are going to go down this road, the time to tell people that they cannot travel is when they seek to book their tickets. The people involved will at least then be alerted to the difficulties before they arrive at the airport.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has pointed out to me that he has never been asked for his date of birth when booking an airline ticket or turning up at a checkout. Neither have I, so the sort of information that the Minister spoke about goes beyond what people would normally be asked for when purchasing tickets or boarding an aeroplane.
	Thirdly, a real danger that the Government have not thought through—but which was mentioned by me and by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—involves people at risk in their own countries. If the authorities see someone being rejected and do not know whether that has happened because that person, in his or her past, came to Britain on a false passport, or because that person is an international security threat, they might draw the worst rather than the best conclusions. There is a terrible risk that a person in that situation could be regarded as much more dangerous than is truly the case. The result is that that person could become even more vulnerable, and that would also be out of our control.
	Finally, if the Government want to pursue this proposal they should talk to partner Governments in the EU, in the international associations covering air transport and in the other international organisations, to see whether there can be agreement about a common scheme. However, any such scheme must defend people's liberties. It should not build yet more barriers around a fortress Britain in an increasingly fortress Europe and fortress world.
	The Minister is right that a balance must be struck between combating international terrorism and preventing people from abusing immigration and other systems. We judge that the measure goes far beyond that. The implications have not been thought through, and I urge the House to support amendment No. 66.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 117
	 — 
	Assisting unlawful immigration, &c.

Amendments made: No. 195, in page 62, line 35, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	'(a) does an act which facilitates the commission of a breach of immigration law by an individual who is not a citizen of the European Union,
	(b) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the act facilitates the commission of a breach of immigration law by the individual, and
	(c) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the individual is not a citizen of the European Union.'.
	No. 196, in page 63, line 5, leave out "travel within" and insert "transit across".
	No. 197, in page 64, line 2, after "which", insert—
	'(a)'.
	No. 198, in page 64, line 2, at end insert—
	', and
	(b) does not charge for its services'.
	No. 199, in page 64, line 6, after "deportation", insert "or exclusion".
	No. 200, in page 64, line 8, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	'(a) does an act which facilitates a breach of a deportation order in force against an individual who is a citizen of the European Union, and
	(b) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the act facilitates a breach of the deportation order.'.
	No. 201, in page 64, line 12, at end insert—
	'(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where the Secretary of State personally directs that the exclusion from the United Kingdom of an individual who is a citizen of the European Union is conducive to the public good.
	(1B) A person commits an offence if he—
	(a) does an act which assists the individual to arrive in, enter or remain in the United Kingdom,
	(b) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the act assists the individual to arrive in, enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and
	(c) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the Secretary of State has personally directed that the individual's exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good.'.
	No. 202, in page 65, line 7, leave out—
	'brought more than 20 illegal entrants to the United Kingdom'
	and insert—
	'carried more than 20 illegal entrants'.
	No. 203, in page 65, line 12, leave out—
	'to bring illegal entrants to the United Kingdom'
	and insert—
	'in the course of the commission of an offence under section 25, 25A or 25B'.
	No. 204, in page 65, line 23, at end insert—
	'(9) In the case of an offence under section 25, the reference in subsection (5)(a) to an illegal entrant shall be taken to include a reference to—
	(a) an individual who seeks to enter a member State in breach of immigration law (within the meaning of section 25), and
	(b) an individual who is a passenger for the purpose of section 118 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (traffic in prostitution).
	(10) In the case of an offence under section 25A, the reference in subsection (5)(a) to an illegal entrant shall be taken to include a reference to—
	(a) an asylum-seeker (within the meaning of that section), and
	(b) an individual who is a passenger for the purpose of section 118(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
	(11) In the case of an offence under section 25B, the reference in subsection (5)(a) to an illegal entrant shall be taken to include a reference to an individual who is a passenger for the purpose of section 118(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.'.
	No. 205, in page 65, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

Clause 119
	 — 
	Section 118: supplementary

Amendment made: No. 206, in page 66, line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	'(3) Sections 25C and 25D of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (forfeiture or detention of vehicle, &c.) shall apply in relation to an offence under section 118 of this Act as they apply in relation to an offence under section 25 of that Act.'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

Clause 121
	 — 
	Registration card

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 68, leave out lines 19 to 21.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 207.

Richard Allan: Amendment No. 73 deals with registration cards, which are to be issued to all asylum seekers. We understand that that work has already commenced. We expressed concerns about this in Committee; Liberal Democrat Members have concerns about registration cards in the wider sense, and we sought assurances that they would be restricted to specific purposes to do with asylum and immigration.
	The amendment would prevent the Home Secretary from being able to extend the use of registration cards, even into areas of immigration, through secondary legislation. We remain concerned, as we were in Committee, about the possible extension of registration cards without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	We understood from the Minister's comments in Committee that the initial intention was to limit the card to asylum seekers. Indeed, clause 121(1)(b) is specific about the card being
	"issued . . . in connection with a claim for asylum".
	We suggested in Committee that if the Government's intention was simply to extend the cards for immigration purposes, it would be better to spell that out in the Bill. The Government have not made any consequential changes and we are left, therefore, with a clause that clearly deals with registration cards for asylum seekers.
	We understood the reason for that and the logic behind it—moving from the voucher system towards a system under which benefits could be claimed. Our understanding is that the cards are really entitlement cards and will be of advantage to the individuals who hold them. That is our general approach to the use of registration or identity cards—they are something that can benefit the individual, which justifies their introduction. On the face of it, however, the clause is saying, "Let us have registration cards for asylum seekers", but subsection (7) will leave the way open to the Secretary of State to
	"by order . . . amend the definition of 'registration card'".
	The Bill is called the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and it deals with different categories of people. Asylum seekers are a small and well defined category. In Committee, it was certainly suggested that the amendment envisaged in subsection (7) might mean the inclusion of a broader category of immigration applicant. All people who have immigration business would be a much wider category than asylum seekers—all those with nationality business are a wider category again. Our concern remains that we do not want a provision for asylum seekers to be extended to those broader categories without further parliamentary scrutiny.
	The Bill without the amendment, which would remove the order-making powers, leaves far too much discretion to the Secretary of State to extend the requirement for individuals to carry registration cards. We want further assurances from the Government. In particular, we seek an assurance that they intend further to define the registration card in a manner that will parallel the present definition, rather than leaving us with the definition in the Bill—that the card is for purposes connected with asylum, but with a get-out clause that would allow the Secretary of State to rewrite the provision and say that it is for purposes x, y and z without further defining what those are, other than that they must be generally within the immigration field. We hope that the Government do not intend to leave the legislation like that and we seek further information from the Minister as to what their intentions are.

Rosie Winterton: I hope that I may be able to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) some assurances on that matter.
	Clause 121 would insert new section 26A into the Immigration Act 1971. The section would introduce a number of offences to deal with the creation, possession and use of false or altered registration cards, which are also known as application registration cards, ARCs. Those cards are at present issued to asylum seekers and their dependants as an acknowledgement of their application for asylum. They contain information about the individual asylum seeker, including his or her name, address, nationality, date of birth, photograph and fingerprints, which are stored on a computer chip, as the hon. Gentleman said. They are issued to asylum seekers when they leave the induction process.
	I emphasise that the card is not an identity card, but it will certainly speed up the process of establishing a holder's identity when reporting to the immigration service and when accessing any benefits that an asylum seeker may be entitled to at a post office. Holders of the card will not be required to carry it or to produce it to a police officer. That matter was raised in our earlier debates. Obviously, however, they may find it useful to carry the card to help to establish their identity.
	Although the card has been designed to incorporate a number of security features, which will certainly make it difficult to forge or to alter, attempts may be made to do so. That is the reason why we have created the forgery offences in clause 121.
	The definition of a registration card in subsection (1) of the clause refers to a card
	"issued . . . in connection with a claim for asylum",
	but it is possible that in future registration cards will be issued to other classes of person who are subject to immigration control. Subsection (7) therefore allows the Secretary of State to make an order by the affirmative procedure to change the definition of a registration card for the purposes of the offences in the clause. There would have to be an affirmative order to create the offence to ensure that if the card were extended to other areas, it would be an offence to forge it. The purpose of that power is to ensure that if registration cards are issued to non-asylum seekers, the offences contained in clause 121 will apply to those cards.
	The amendment would not affect the immigration and nationality directorate's ability to issue cards to non-asylum seekers because, as I said, clause 121 is not concerned with conferring powers to issue cards, it merely creates offences in relation to cards that have already been issued.
	If the amendment is intended, therefore, to restrict IND's ability to issue cards to non-asylum seekers, it would not achieve that purpose. Obviously, it would also create an anomalous and undesirable situation, as someone could commit a criminal offence if they altered a card issued to an asylum seeker, but would not commit any offence if they forged a card that was issued to, for example, an illegal entrant.
	The order-making power in subsection (7) is subject to affirmative resolution, which offers a safeguard to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise any changes in the definition of the card.
	The hon. Gentleman raises several issues about the way in which the card could be extended. Perhaps I can reassure him because, as he will know, the cards are currently issued to new asylum seekers, and we have a programme to extend them to existing asylum seekers. However, in future, the IND could consider issuing the card to other categories of people subject to control under immigration legislation. Obviously, the IND is not yet certain which additional categories of people will be covered by ARCs.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend says that more categories of people could be included, but that would not include anyone who had received indefinite leave to remain, would it?

Rosie Winterton: I was about to refer to the type of people who would be covered. The basis of the functionality of ARCs is a biometric representation of fingerprints, so it is unlikely that an ARC could be issued to anyone who could not be fingerprinted under section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That helps to explain that the categories are limited to the people who could be fingerprinted.
	I could give some examples if that would assist hon. Members. For example, people who fail to produce a valid passport with a photograph or other document satisfactorily establishing their identity and nationality on arrival in the United Kingdom could perhaps be given ARCs on the basis that their identity is open to doubt. We do not know their true identity or necessarily where they came from. Even if we know both those things, to remove them from the United Kingdom we would need the co-operation of their country of origin, which is by no means a forgone conclusion. I could give other examples, but I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we seek only to extend the categories to those people.
	I now come to Government amendment No. 207. Section 28B of the Immigration Act 1971 allows a justice of the peace to issue a warrant authorising an immigration officer to enter premises to arrest a person suspected of committing a relevant offence. A relevant offence for the purposes of that section is defined in subsection (5) and includes the current offence of harbouring an illegal entrant or overstayer under section 25(2).
	Clause 123(2) will add new offences relating to ARCs and the possession of an immigration stamp to the list of relevant offences. However, the present 25(2) offence will be subsumed into the general offences under proposed new sections 25 and 25B, inserted by clause 117. The power to enter to effect an arrest for those offences will come under section 28C of the 1971 Act, so there is no need for the section 25(2) offence to be a relevant offence for the purposes of section 28B. Indeed, proposed new section 25(2) does not contain a separate offence. That is why we have tabled Government amendment No. 207. I very much hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam will withdraw the amendment and accept Government amendment No. 207.

Richard Allan: I thank the Minister for gently and courteously informing me that I have been tilting at the wrong windmill and seeking to limit the Government's power to specify the offences involving registration cards, rather than dealing with the registration cards themselves. It remains a great joy to me that we often end up talking about things by proxy when we debate legislation in the House. For example, primary legislation is not needed to introduce the registration cards, but it is needed to create the offences that relate to them. I am sure that we shall return to registration cards on many other occasions, but having heard the Minister's argument, I think it appropriate to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123
	 — 
	Sections 121 and 122: consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 207, in page 69, line 15, leave out "25(2),".—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

Clause 125
	 — 
	Power of entry

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 70, line 44, after "28CA", insert ", 28FA or 28FB".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 91.
	Amendment No. 74, in clause 126, page 71, line 16, leave out from "if" to end of line 17 and insert—
	'on application made by an immigration officer a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing'.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 71, line 20, leave out "employee records" and insert "records of that employee".
	Government amendments Nos. 92 and 93.
	Amendment No. 76, in page 71, line 25, leave out "employee records" and insert "records of that employee".
	Government amendment No. 94.
	Amendment No. 77, in page 71, line 33, leave out "employee records" and insert "records of that employee".
	Government amendments Nos. 95 to 102.

Beverley Hughes: These amendments relate to the new powers of entry to business premises and the power to search employee records. Section 146(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 already allows an immigration officer exercising his or her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to use reasonable force if necessary. Subsection (2) confers an equivalent power on anyone exercising the fingerprinting powers in section 141 or 142 of the 1999 Act or powers under regulations made under section 144, which relate to other methods of collecting information about physical characteristics apart from fingerprinting.
	An immigration officer exercising the new powers of entry and search created by clauses 125 and 126 will be able to use reasonable force because these powers are being inserted into the 1971 Act. The use of reasonable force by anyone else, however, requires express provision to be made. As the clauses also confer powers on constables and, in the case of clause 125, on detainee custody officers, express provision has to be made to allow them to use reasonable force.
	That has already been done in respect of the power of entry. The first of these amendments therefore makes the equivalent provision when a police constable is using the new powers to search for personnel records. The second makes the necessary consequential change to the title of the sections.
	The power to inspect employee records under the new section 28FA, which is inserted by clause 126, is very limited. It is a power that does not require a warrant because, for reasons that I shall explain, we believe that that is the only effective way in which it can be exercised. We also believe that we have provided sufficient safeguards in the exercise of the power to ensure that the rights of all parties will be properly protected.
	The new power to inspect employee records can be exercised only when a person has been arrested on business premises for one of the specified offences, or when someone is present on business premises who is liable to be arrested for one of those offences. In other words, it requires that a person is identified who is thought to be an immigration offender. If, in addition, the constable or immigration officer reasonably believes that an offence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 may have been committed, and that employee records on the premises will be of substantial value to the investigation of the offence, this clause allows him or her to search for, seize and retain those records.
	By way of an example, let us suppose that someone has been arrested on business premises for being an illegal entrant. In that case, such a person would not have permission to work in the UK. That would mean that the employer is likely to be committing an offence under section 8 of the 1996 Act by employing that person. When an officer reasonably believes that the employer has committed this offence, and that there will be records on the premises that will substantially assist the investigation of it, he or she can search the premises.
	If amendment No. 74, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), were to be accepted, however, once someone liable to arrest had been identified, everything would have to stop while an immigration officer went off and applied to a magistrate for a warrant to search for the relevant employee records. Quite what the constable would do in those circumstances is unclear because, under the amendment, only an immigration officer would be allowed to apply for a warrant for that purpose.
	If the officer were forced to go to the magistrates court to obtain a warrant, the employer would clearly have every incentive and opportunity to destroy any evidence of the section 8 offence that had existed before the officer returned. The fact that the employee had been arrested or identified as liable to arrest would clearly have alerted the employer to the interest of the enforcement authorities. In these circumstances, we believe that a power to search without warrant is necessary and proportionate. The amendment would therefore render the new power in the new section 28FA completely ineffective. That is why we cannot accept it.
	Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 would limit the power to search for personnel records under the new section 28FA to a power to search for, seize and retain the records of the person who has been arrested or believed to be liable to arrest. We do not believe that such limitations are practical or desirable. Amendment No. 75 seeks to ensure that the power of search is triggered only when an officer reasonably believes that the records of the arrested person will be found on the premises. The amendment is unnecessary. The proposed new subsection (2) already makes it clear that the power of search will be triggered only if the officer reasonably believes that an immigration employment offence has been committed in relation to the person arrested and that employee records will be found that will be of substantial value in the investigation of that offence.
	Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 seek to restrict the scope of the search that can be undertaken and the powers of seizure and retention of employment records to the records of the arrested person. Again, we believe that that limitation is impractical and does not take into account the realities of conducting a search of personnel records: one has to search a whole drawer of records to try to find the one that relates to the person arrested or who is liable to arrest. It is impractical—I would say impossible—not to search through other records to try to find the record one wants. It is highly unlikely that the records of the suspected offender will be kept separately from those of other employees.
	If a constable or immigration officer is searching for the records of that employee, he or she must of necessity have to search through the records of all employees. If, in the course of that search, the constable or immigration officer comes across evidence of other immigration employment offences or evidence of NASS fraud, that person cannot simply ignore it. That would be absurd. He or she needs to be able to seize and retain that evidence immediately. That is what the clause allows.

Keith Vaz: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but it sounds a bit like a fishing expedition. The hope is that looking at other records might mean that other offences are discovered. Can she assure me that the records will be returned as soon as possible after the person involved has been dealt with?

Beverley Hughes: It is not a fishing expedition. I am simply making the point that seeking the employment records of a person who has been arrested or is liable for arrest because he is a suspect inevitably means that a constable must go through a bank of records to see whether the one that he wants is there. In doing that, if records of other people who may be suspected of employment offences come to light, that fact cannot be ignored.
	The Government amendments seek to clarify the conditions that relate to this power and that have to be satisfied for a search to be conducted under the new section. Our amendments are perfectly reasonable and understandable. I hope that the House will accept them.

Richard Allan: I shall concentrate on amendments Nos. 74 to 77 and I give notice of our intention to divide the House on amendment No. 74, which deals with an important principle.
	We believe that whenever possible there should be prior judicial scrutiny of requests by law enforcement authorities to search for personal information on premises and remove it. We need to strike a balance between the rights of the employer and the other employees. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to a fishing expedition. Our problem is not with those fishing expeditions that are successful because they catch a full haul of fish, but with those that go through the records of innocent fish for no particular reason. People are rightly aggrieved if their privacy is breached when no serious offence has been committed.
	The rights of the innocent employees whose records may be seized under the provisions and the rights of the employers should be taken seriously. We would, of course, accept advice on who should seek the JP's warrant—the immigration officer and the constable as opposed to just the immigration officer, perhaps. However, without judicial scrutiny there is a serious risk that the powers could be used in an overbearing way.
	If the judicial scrutiny element is included in the legislation, we could develop systems that work. That is especially relevant to those cases in which a constable or immigration officer believes that offences are liable to be committed and that employer X is employing people illegally. In those circumstances, there is no reason why they should not go to a magistrate and get authority for a search warrant as they would in many other instances that require law enforcement agencies to have warrants.
	An additional safeguard is required. There is a risk that the powers will be used inappropriately if the Bill is left unamended, so we will seek to divide the House on amendment No. 74.

Humfrey Malins: There is a problem with the clause. Whenever one sees a reference to search warrants, one wants to see a reference to the courts. The Minister will know that when an officer wants to obtain a search warrant for premises on which there are drugs, he goes before a district judge or magistrate, swears an information setting out his reasons for believing that the premises contain drugs and is then examined by the court, which asks for more information and cross-examines him on it. Only when the magistrate or district judge is satisfied that there is a reasonable case does he grant the warrant.
	Proposed new section 28FA states:
	"This section applies where . . . a constable . . . reasonably believes that a person is liable to arrest for an offence."
	In the example that I gave of drugs on the premises, there was a possible challenge to the constable's reasonable belief, which would have been made before the warrant was executed by the district judge. However, the Bill makes no provision for the reasonable belief of a constable to be challenged because there can be no prior challenge and a subsequent challenge would effectively be invalid. The Government have to address that dilemma.
	The other dilemma that they face has been alluded to: will the proposal result in a fishing exercise? The amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats attempt to narrow the remit to the employee records of the employee concerned. When the Minister reads Hansard, she will observe that she referred to the importance of "the relevant employee records". In other words, the records should be limited to that employee. She said that one has to search records thoroughly to find the relevant ones, but what distresses me is that all the records of a firm can be searched, removed and acted on because of the reasonable belief of an immigration officer, which is not capable of challenge. That is a big worry.

Beverley Hughes: I simply commend the amendment to the House.
	Amendment agreed to.
	It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [11 June].

Clause 126
	 — 
	Power to search for evidence

Amendment proposed: No. 74, in page 71, line 16, leave out from "if" to end of line 17 and insert—
	'on application made by an immigration officer a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing'.—[Mr. Allan.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 292.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I should like to thank both past and present Ministers for their work and support over the past few months in introducing a complex and difficult measure. I should also like to thank Labour Members for the forbearance that they have shown and the contribution that they have made, and the two major Opposition parties for the way in which the debate has been conducted from Second Reading, through the Committee stage and over the past two days. That impressive difference in tone, compared with the way in which nationality, immigration and asylum issues have been dealt with in the past in this House and elsewhere, has made a difference to the way in which hon. Members and people outside the House have been able to address these very sensitive issues. We have had disagreements and will continue to do so, but there has been a unanimity about the way forward that could not have been expected even a year ago.
	In the White Paper and in subsequent debates we have tried to balance the critical issues involved. We want to offer a warm welcome to people from across the world who wish to come to our shores to settle, to work, to be educated, to visit, to be able to integrate through diversity in our society, to bring different cultures, experiences and enterprise, to contribute to the development of our economy and our social life, to make a difference to local communities and to be able to show a different face. This is Britain—a nation that has been built up over the generations and centuries and of which we are proud today.
	Only six months ago, there was controversy about being proud of that heritage and welcoming people as British nationals prepared to learn our language and about our citizenship, culture and history, and to participate in a ceremony to celebrate an important event. Over the past six months, that controversy has died away. The Bill's passage through Second Reading, Committee, Report and, I hope, Third Reading has signalled that people no longer believe that that is a controversial issue.
	It is also no longer controversial to take the view that we can welcome people legitimately into our country while being robust in developing a system that is trusted, that has the confidence of the British people and that protects our borders and prevents clandestine entry and illegal working. The Bill encapsulates, as the White Paper sought to, the balance between that warm welcome and a hard-headed and sensible, but sensitive, approach to ensuring that our hospitality is not exploited. I said that when I presented the White Paper and on Second Reading, and I say so tonight. We can be proud of providing a sensitive and balanced policy that gets it right in terms not only of our humanitarian obligations and simple humanity, but of our common sense and knowledge that there will always be those who exploit the weak and the timorous, who do not hear the clarion call of clear leadership. That is why, in taking on prejudice and racism, we must be clear about our own leadership and the values that we hold. We must take a common-sense approach that ensures that people know both that we are not to be taken for granted and that we understand what is necessary to protect their interests.
	It is in that spirit that I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading. I do so briefly, so that hon. Members can express their views and have their opinions heard in that broader context: not on individual items on which we may have differences, but on the broad thrust—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I mean the right hon. Gentleman no discourtesy, but he should address the Chair.

David Blunkett: I shall happily address the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	That broad thrust, which unites so many hon. Members and people outside the House, is not to make mischief, not to pretend that we are introducing measures that we are not, not to use terms such as "concentration" for open accommodation centres, and not to encourage people to believe that we are introducing measures that suppress the right of people across the world to come to our shores and to be welcomed in doing so, but to ensure that we as a Parliament express a unified view that we can take all these measures in a manner that commands the support of the British people. If we can do that, we shall do the British nation and our global humanitarian interests a great service.
	I intend to try to achieve the goal through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with our European partners on behalf of our Parliament, and by ensuring that we build social cohesion in our communities, understanding for our stance and a deep and lasting commitment against racists, who will always exploit differences and would bring us to our knees if they had the chance.

Oliver Letwin: I join the Home Secretary in welcoming the tone of our national debates on asylum in past months. I am also pleased that our discussions have been rational and that some progress has been made in understanding each other's positions. I welcome the Government's significant moves towards our position.
	The Bill remains a curate's egg—it has some good and bad bits. It is good that it sets out the legal foundation in domestic law for the move towards bilateral and multilateral agreements. The Home Secretary knows that I pressed him on that for months, and I shall continue to do that for, I hope, not many more months. I have no doubt that he will claim a great victory when he achieves the bilateral agreement. I hope that he will remember that there was a time when he did not believe in the need for it. I shall consider it a major success if we manage, through him, to achieve that necessary goal.
	The measure sets out a framework for accommodation centres—another Conservative suggestion with an older origin. It is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that she began the process of persuading the Labour Government of the need to move in that general direction. We have pointed out at many stages that, although the accommodation centres are an improvement on our starting point, they remain unlikely to fulfil the critical role that is essential if the system is to work properly. I shall not speak about the many detailed amendments that are required for the centres to operate properly.
	I want to animadvert to perhaps the most ingenious coup that the Home Secretary has pulled off in his term of office. I know of no other major officer-holder in the Government who has managed to create a problem and subsequently collect so much praise from so many quarters and so much opprobrium from others for solving it.
	By dint of moving towards large centres in rural areas, the Home Secretary created the problem that local schools could not withstand the effects of having all the children in the centres deposited on them. He subsequently solved the problem, thereby acquiring a reputation in parts of the right-wing press as the sort of Home Secretary who should be the shadow Home Secretary. I wrestle with that problem daily. I cannot understand why his production of a solution to a problem that he created is a matter for congratulation in the right-wing press. I hope that we will persuade him of the need for smaller centres that will not cause the difficulties, and thus deprive him of a victory for solving a problem that did not need to arise.
	The need, which the Home Secretary identified, for a balanced and effective system remains. It has to balance the needs of people who are desperate with those of our nation to control the flow of immigration through proper and fair rules. It has to be effective, because if it is not, the whole immigration system will be brought into disrepute, and control over it will cease to be a possibility. We share those acknowledgments, not just across these Dispatch Boxes but more widely, in Parliament and beyond.
	The great advance that we have made is that there is now a general recognition—I agree with the Home Secretary about this—that this subject needs to be addressed, and that we need a system that is not only balanced but effective. I hope that three years from now, the Home Secretary's measures will have achieved that, and that he will make enough further changes to the Bill to maximise the chances of achieving that desirable result.

Angela Eagle: I had not thought, when I wound up the Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House on 24 April, that I would be making my contribution on Third Reading from the Back Benches. But the view from up here is quite good, and I am sure that I am going to enjoy myself.
	I should like to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who were kind enough to compliment me at the beginning of the debate on Report—it was much appreciated. I also wish the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), very well in her new post. I admire her greatly and I am sure that she will do a good job.
	Given my new-found freedom, it will not surprise the House that I shall now be making a different speech on Third Reading from the one that, two weeks ago, I had anticipated making. Before anyone gets too excited, I should say that this speech will not consist of sudden and spiteful anti-Government rhetoric. Indeed, I continue to support what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill. I wish, however, to air publicly a couple of the points that I have been making in private, which I believe will increase our chances of success.
	We are right to see immigration and asylum as one of the most emotive and difficult issues facing us today, which is why I welcome the tone of our debates, both Upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We are right to see it as a difficult issue for Governments of the progressive left, and to accept that it is not one that we should duck. A superficial analysis of recent elections in Europe will blame worries about illegal immigration and asylum for the string of losses suffered by social democrats. While the uncertainty and hostility to illegal immigration was undoubtedly a feature in some cases, that analysis is an over-simplification.
	I cannot agree with the third-way guru, Anthony Giddens, who recently argued that the far right can be beaten by being tough on immigration. I might have agreed with him if he had said "illegal immigration", but since he did not, I have to say to him that we will not deal with this issue by out-Powelling Enoch. Indeed, it would be immoral to be caught triangulating with far-right fanatics. Fortunately, that is not what the Bill does. We need a system that makes decisions fairly and effectively, cuts out the profits of the traffickers and deals firmly with those who seek to abuse either the asylum or the immigration system. This should include those who employ clandestine immigrants illegally in the United Kingdom.
	Giddens went on to argue that we need to be
	"tough on the causes of hostility to immigrants".
	That is part of his agenda with which I can agree, and this is an area in which we need to do much more. Too many of our ethnic minority communities still suffer a daily experience of racism and discrimination, exacerbated by certain debates and by hysterical press coverage of the asylum issue. The Government must work harder to make our vision of equality a reality for these communities. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the recent introduction of tougher sentences for racially and religiously motivated crime is a step forward, but that should be only the beginning. The work being done on community cohesion in the aftermath of last summer's riots is vital if we are to demonstrate by our actions rather than just by our rhetoric our absolute rejection of racism and our abhorrence of the discrimination that is its inevitable consequence.
	We need to look at the White Paper and the Bill as a whole. They present a more holistic approach to the issues than we have seen in the past, and I for one take some pride in that. The Bill, for example, provides for the development of a resettlement programme that will, for the first time, afford a legal gateway into the UK for UNHCR refugees, better integration programmes for those accepted as refugees, and the extension of legal routes for economic migrants to enter the UK to work in both the high and medium-skilled categories. The Bill also strengthens powers to tackle illegal working and introduces new offences of people-trafficking to fight the organised gangs that are currently making huge profits from the trade in human misery and exploitation. Those are all extremely welcome developments, which I support wholeheartedly.
	I now want to take a little time to raise the two issues that I mentioned earlier. The first concerns administrative coherence in the immigration and nationality directorate, and the second is the lack of a low-skilled migration route into the United Kingdom, which regrettably the White Paper omitted to deal with.
	I am not the first hon. Member to make an observation about the IND, but I believe that more needs to be done on general administrative coherence and competence. Some standards are improving, and many staff do a superb job, but they are badly let down by the systems in place. The systems are largely paper based, and files are too often duplicated or lost, or go missing, which leads to unnecessary delay and confusion. The system can be especially slow for those who are waiting for upgrades. Although Labour in office has improved the Conservative average for end-to-end casework from 20 months to 13, that is clearly still not good enough. We need a step change. Without good progress in this area, these reforms will not lead to the improvements that we all want.
	The second issue is the creation of a new, low-skilled migration route into the UK to assist our returns policy. We know that there is a demand for low-skilled labour in the UK, which is currently being met by illegal immigrants in the black economy, often in exploitative conditions. Their arrival in this country is usually facilitated by the traffickers.
	We know that many of the countries whose citizens are involved benefit from the flow of funds that such workers send back, so they are reluctant to accept them back when we seek to return them. It is impossible to return any citizen of a country without that country issuing papers to the individuals concerned to allow them to go back. Despite the arrival of many Chinese citizens every month, last year the Chinese Government issued papers for the return of only seven of them. Would not it be more sensible to say to such countries that, if they take back their clandestine entrants, we will issue permits that allow their citizens to come and work in the UK legally in the low-skilled areas that are currently short of labour? I believe that everyone would gain from such an approach. The demand for such labour here is far better filled legally than illegally. We and the countries with which we reached agreement would decide which individuals could come and work here and for how long, rather than the criminal gangs that currently make such decisions for us, usually upon payment of large amounts of money. I was disappointed that that chance was not taken when the White Paper was written, and I hope that we will be able to put that omission right soon.
	I welcome the chance to speak in the debate. For the first time in many years we have an opportunity to make progress together across the Floor of the House on these difficult issues. I support the Bill, and I wish it progress and every success.

Simon Hughes: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). I repeat my tribute to her work in her time in the Department. We are happy to have worked with her, whatever our disagreements may have been. I also join the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in saying that I have valued the constructive, co-operative, rational and intelligent way in which we have conducted the whole debate from Second Reading until now, whatever important disagreements we have had and will probably continue to have. I hope that between the end of this debate and the passage of the Bill into law we will have more constructive dialogue inside and outside the parliamentary Chambers so as to get as much as possible of a Bill on which we can agree, even if it is not the Bill that my colleagues and I would have put before Parliament.
	On Second Reading, I recommended to my colleagues that we reserve our position, and we did not vote against the Bill. We thought that it was right that it should proceed. I expressed some of our reservations, and the significant reservations of others. Since then, two major events have occurred. First, major parts of the Bill have gone undebated in Committee and on Report. In the past two days alone, we have had 84 Government amendments, eight Government new clauses and two Government new schedules. In today's earlier debate that was guillotined at 7 o'clock, we dealt with only two out of 14 groups of amendments. The largest part of that was new Government business that was introduced last week and had never come to Parliament before. That in itself is enough to make me tell my colleagues that the Bill is not fit or ready to proceed to the House of Lords, and that is why my colleagues and I sought yesterday to recommit it to a Standing Committee so that we could do the work properly, rather than in a hurried way.
	Many others, advising us from positions of great authority, have said that parts of the Bill have been hurriedly and badly drafted. In relation to the amendments concerning appeals, the Public Law Project wrote only this week that it was
	"extremely concerned about the substance of these developments along with the fact that they have occurred partway through the Bill's passage and without meaningful consultation."

David Blunkett: They are lawyers.

Simon Hughes: The first body whose words I used was the Immigration Advisory Service, a Government- funded agency of the highest reputation. Many people involved are not lawyers, and the lawyers in this instance work for those who are the most disadvantaged. I hope that the Home Secretary will repress his innate dislike of lawyers, and understand that there are much more significant interests here.
	Of course there are good things in the Bill. It is best that we improve citizenship and nationality law, despite the remaining confusion about nationality definitions. The Home Secretary and the Government know that we welcome the principle of induction and accommodation centres. We need more work permits for immigrants—and, as the hon. Member for Wallasey knows, I have long argued that they should be available to low-skilled as well as highly skilled workers. Of course it is also right to provide more resettlement programmes under the UNHCR.
	Nevertheless, the Bill contains things that are significantly wrong. Although yesterday's concession—people in families would be in accommodation centres for only six months—was welcome, the centres are likely often to be in the wrong places. They could be privately run; the conditions of residence could be oppressive. The facilities are not guaranteed, and as the Home Secretary knows, in every case bar one that he currently contemplates, they will be far too large to command the confidence of the public and all the agencies concerned.
	There are severely bad proposals to withdraw the option of support for asylum seekers who stay with their families or with friends. There is no justification for such proposals. There are also badly argued and insufficiently debated proposals to remove other benefits. That should be done on a European basis as a social security reform, not on a national basis as a way of making it more difficult for people to stay here.
	There is the completely inexplicable change of name, from "detention centres" to "removal centres"—although many people in the centres will not have completed the process preceding a decision on their case. Making those people think they will be removed before any adjudication will give them no confidence in the impartiality of the system. That too is entirely unjustified. There is no automatic bail: the Government have proposed the repeal of their own measure in that regard. Perhaps the worst proposal of all is not only to deny rights of appeal in this country, so that people must go abroad to exercise those rights—that, in most cases, will mean their not being exercised at all—but to take them out of the normal process of judicial review. Some of the carrier proposals that we have not debated are also wrong, as are some proposals relating to offences.

Oliver Letwin: I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations, and we too tried to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee; but is he really saying that the country would be better off without the Bill, imperfect as it is?

Simon Hughes: The Bill is not fit to proceed, and we cannot support it in its present form. It is possible to deal entirely properly with immigration and asylum matters if time is taken over it, but on three previous occasions Parliament has rushed legislation through without listening to advice. On all three occasions, it has got the legislation badly and—in some cases—criminally wrong.
	My colleagues and I are not, therefore, willing to endorse a fourth mistaken set of proposals, and we are going to rely on the other place to amend the Bill as far as possible. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary may say "sanctimonious", but I shall end simply by saying this.
	We in this country have a proud tradition of standing up for human rights, and whatever the Government do, I hope that the courts will ensure that we retain that proud tradition. Immigrants have been the backbone of this country. They have contributed and continue to contribute to it economically and in every other way. We have a duty to asylum seekers to offer them the best reception. In the words of Will Hutton in last weekend's edition of The Observer:
	"it's time to stand up for your liberalism".
	Although Governments throughout Europe are running scared of this issue, and although the argument of mainland European Governments may differ from ours because, unlike us, they fall within the Schengen agreement, it is not justifiable for any Government of this country—let alone a Labour Government—to worsen the position of immigrants and asylum seekers by moving further to the right.
	I am afraid that we must vote against giving the Bill a Third Reading, and in doing so we make it absolutely clear that it contains many proposals that will be bad for race relations, bad for immigration policy and bad for asylum seekers. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us in opposing a Bill that has got worse, not better, in the past few months.

Mike Gapes: If that was a constructive contribution, I would hate to hear the Liberal Democrats make a destructive one. [Interruption.] That was a typical response—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mike Gapes: It was a typical response from a party that is unable to make a constructive contribution to anything. In Committee, I listened for hour after hour to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The main reason why we did not discuss most of the clauses was that he spoke at interminable length, and for far longer than anybody else. Nor was that the first time that he has done so. [Interruption.] I remember when we discussed legislation on the Greater London Authority and on terrorism in Standing Committee. He is an expert at taking up the time of other Committee members and Members of this House. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to Third Reading.

Mike Gapes: I shall return to the substance of the issues before us. The Bill is vital. It contains important provisions on citizenship, integration and respect that we in this country can be proud of. It is also about incorporating our black and ethnic minority communities, so that they have full rights and are fully integrated. The fact that the Liberal Democrats propose to vote against it tells us a great deal about the nature of their party. [Interruption.] As we know, in parts of the country such as Oldham, they have pandered to racism and xenophobia, and have played a duplicitous role in respect of accommodation centres. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mike Gapes: It is time we told the truth about the two-faced, Janus-like Liberal Democrats, who say one thing in one street, and another in the next. [Interruption.] When it suits them, they are on the left—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said a few moments ago. Will he please address his remarks to Third Reading of the Bill?

Mike Gapes: I appreciate your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will do as you say.
	Importantly, until the previous contribution, the tone in the House and in Committee showed that this country as a whole—including local government and central Government—welcomes immigration and wants to establish a legal route for primary immigration for the first time in 30 years. It is very important that we talk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said, not only about professional people coming to work and live in this country, but about other people from all over the world. Some operators charge poor people, who put their families in hock for the money, $7,000, $10,000 or even $12,000 to smuggle them in dangerous conditions from, for example, Sri Lanka through the Balkans into western Europe. When they arrive, those people live in semi-slave conditions, often working illegally with no social protection. That undermines the national minimum wage and thus one of the other achievements of this Labour Government—the attempt to raise people out of poverty.
	From the left—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats are laughing because they are not of the left. The Labour party has always stood up for the rights of the oppressed and the poor. Those who are most oppressed and the poorest in our society are the black and Asian people who work in hotels and catering, in sweatshops and garment factories in the east end of London, and those who are paid £1 an hour or less as home workers. We need to ensure that such criminal exploitation does not continue. I hope that the Home Office will work with other Departments, especially the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, to ensure that we have rigorous enforcement of the law on employment. In that way, as we welcome more people to this country, we will ensure that they work in the right conditions with proper taxes and national insurance. They need to be here legally so that they can join trade unions and consult Members of Parliament to expose the bad employers and those who do down the socially inclusive policies for which we all stand.

Tony Baldry: I suspect that there is no Member of Parliament who does not want to see a just and tolerant society. One of the tragedies of the Report and Third Reading stages of this Bill is that we have had such a short time that we have tended to emphasise our differences instead of finding common ground. I suspect that considerable common ground could be found on these matters. My first ever speech, as a 19-year-old student to a Conservative party conference, was in support of the then Conservative Government's decision to allow east African Asians into the United Kingdom in 1972. I suspect that the differences between the sides are not great, but I am concerned about the size and location of accommodation centres. Little attention has been paid during the debate to those who have raised concerns.
	For example, Oxfam has written to every hon. Member about the Bill. It has stated:
	"Oxfam is particularly concerned about the proposals to set up Accommodation Centres. We believe centres with 750 beds will inevitably be highly institutionalised, and result in damaging 'warehousing'—with knock-on rises in boredom, stress and even violence among what is likely to be predominantly a young male population . . . It also appears that a number of sites under consideration for the location of Accommodation Centres will be too isolated."
	The Refugee Council has said:
	"The size of the centres is a major concern . . . the capacity of such centres should not exceed 100 bed spaces."
	It also believes that
	"the locations the Government is currently considering are remote from urban centres and away from the kind of support infrastructure that asylum seekers and their families would need."
	Many other organisations have made similar comments.
	All I ask of the Home Secretary is that Ministers approach this trial with open minds. Indeed, I hope that all of us will evaluate the experiment fairly and properly. The trial will include only three accommodation centres in its initial phase. For reasons that we rehearsed yesterday, they will all be in Conservative-held constituencies in relatively rural areas.
	The centres are an experiment that involves us all, so I shall simply repeat what I said yesterday. If, after the due process of the planning system and the public inquiry that I hope will be held—at which the Government will be judge and jury in their own cause—it is decided that there will be an accommodation centre in my area, I hope that hon. Members of all parties will visit my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) shares that hope in connection with his constituency. It is important that all hon. Members should be involved in evaluating the experiment.
	The last thing that I want people to say when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I tell the House about accommodation centres as we experience them through our constituency surgeries is that we are being nimbyist. I suspect that we are the three least nimbyist hon. Members in the House.
	The House has a collective responsibility in this matter, and I hope that other hon. Members will be willing to share in that responsibility.

Oliver Letwin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Baldry: Indeed.

Oliver Letwin: I just want to correct an apprehension that may exist among Labour Members by putting on record the fact that I think that the three Conservative Members involved in this matter have behaved with astonishing propriety and courage in a very difficult situation. They have argued the case for their constituents without the slightest nimbyism.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. We all appreciate that other hon. Members—and I see that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) is in his place—also have problems with the proposals. We do not deny that. However, the Government have decided that the experiment will involve huge numbers of people in comparatively remote locations. I say again that the responsibility must be shared. If the accommodation centres go ahead, I very much hope that other hon. Members will visit the relevant constituencies and see them.

David Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I give way to the Home Secretary.

David Blunkett: I am grateful. I want to put on record the fact that we understand perfectly well why the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues affected by the proposals have stated their position on more than one occasion. On a slightly lighter note, I think that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has been outdone when it comes to being the least nimbyist of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is at this very moment looking for a site in the south-west of Sheffield to house an accommodation centre. I greatly look forward to receiving that application.

Tony Baldry: I conclude by saying that there is one matter on which the Home Secretary and I will always agree. That is that, whatever initiative we take in politics, we will always be outdone by the Liberal Democrats.

Neil Gerrard: On Second Reading, I acknowledged that there were parts of the Bill—the proposals on trafficking, work permits, and so on—that would be welcomed by everyone. However, I did raise some concerns about the Bill, and nothing that has been said in Standing Committee, and in particular on Report, has served to decrease them. In fact, the opposite is the case.
	Much of what the Bill contains in relation to asylum seems to be an example of the Government seeking to impose legislative solutions on matters that are not really legislative problems. We are placing a new and more expensive system of support on top of a system that was already complicated and which did not work especially well.
	If accommodation centres are established—and I shall be interested to see when we get the first one—they will be very expensive. They will have to be large—otherwise the Government will find it incredibly expensive to provide services on site. I still have my doubts about on-site education.
	Much of the argument has been misplaced, as it is clear that the accommodation centres are much more about processing applications than about providing accommodation. I would prefer the millions of pounds-worth of capital being devoted to establishing and running the accommodation centres—which will generate about 1,200 jobs—to be used to improve the Home Office systems that exist now. Perhaps we could start paying asylum seekers at income support level instead of at 70 per cent. of that level.
	If we had not made the mistake in 1997 of sticking to the Tories' spending proposals and getting rid of people from the Home Office, perhaps we would have had a chance of getting Home Office systems that worked. We might have got answers to letters that we sent and decisions might have been made and implemented in a reasonable time. I accept that implementing decisions means removing people who are refused, yet last week someone turned up in my surgery five years after I had written to a Minister and been told they would be removed. If that is what is happening, it really does not matter what we do in legislation. That is where our efforts should go.
	As we have done three times in the past 12 years, we are yet again grossly overestimating the effects that legislation can have on the numbers of people coming to this country and the numbers of unfounded claims. We should deal with claims quickly and enforce the decisions.
	I believe that much of the asylum legislation is unnecessary and some of it is bad. I am not convinced that accommodation centres will work—I think that we will live to regret them. The provisions on the removal of appeal rights and judicial review, and the loss of support are all fundamentally bad legislation. As with previous legislation, the Bill will penalise the genuine applicant as severely as the applicant who is not genuine.
	The Bill is in many ways designed to send messages rather than solving the problems that should be solved. I am afraid that it will not have my support in the Lobby tonight, and I know that some of my hon. Friends will be joining me.

Gregory Barker: The Bill provided me with my first opportunity since entering the House of Commons to serve on a Standing Committee, which is probably why I have been called at 9.56 pm. Nevertheless, it was a real privilege to serve on the Committee considering such an important and serious piece of legislation.
	It was also a real privilege to serve under the expert, generous and wise tutelage of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), whose combination of rapier- sharp intellect and faultless charm is deadly. Although we did not agree with the Government on many issues, hon. Members on both sides in Committee proceeded in a professional and workmanlike way. I was impressed at the way in which all Members worked together. That was partly due to the skilful stewardship of the Bill by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), as well as by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). That is why I was particularly surprised to see the hon. Member for Wallasey so unceremoniously dumped from the Government at such a critical time in the Bill's passage.
	I wish to make three points. The first relates to the welfare and well-being of the majority of asylum seekers who do not remain in this country. Throughout the Committee's proceedings, we debated ad nauseam the welfare of those who are to remain, the education of the children and the nature of the naturalisation ceremonies. However, we largely ignored the fate of the 78 per cent. of asylum seekers who, in theory, are to be removed from the country. While it may be fair and even just that they are returned whence they came, it cannot be right that we simply wash our hands of them. Far more needs to be done to address the problems that will face those people who, we hope, with the passage of the Bill, will be returned to their point of origin.
	My second point deals with the size, scale and location of the centres—issues that have been well rehearsed. However, I would say that the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) are not nimbyism. They are shared by all members of isolated rural communities the length and breadth of Britain who see their own social infrastructure and public services stretched and underfunded.
	My final point concerns the way in which this legislation was rushed through Committee, and then through the House tonight. We were—

It being Ten o'clock Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [11 June] put the Question already proposed from the Chair:—
	The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 74.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill (Money)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.
	The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). On Second Reading, I welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Government. I said that we were sympathetic to its objectives and content for it to proceed into Committee. That was then agreed by the House.
	There was clear agreement from all sides about the scale of the problems caused by antisocial behaviour and the so-called "neighbour from hell" problem. Unfortunately, it is something that we all see in our constituencies. The Bill offers a new approach to the problem which we are keen to explore.
	However, I also made it clear that the Bill would need substantial amendment to make it technically workable and to address human rights concerns. I said that we would work with my right hon. Friend to try to resolve those points. We have been doing that, and I hope that in Committee next week we will be able to debate this thoroughly.
	For that reason, I do not propose to talk about the details of the Bill today. In any case, my right hon Friend is unable to be here. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House.
	One essential point is that this Bill is designed to be an additional weapon in the fight against antisocial behaviour. It is meant to be neither the sole solution nor the main solution. However, this Bill might send the message that the right to support from the state is linked to the responsibility to behave appropriately.
	We are tabling this motion because it is likely that the Bill—whatever precise form it took—would lead to additional expenditure for my Department and for local authorities, which administer housing benefit. The costs involved would depend on the shape of the Bill at the end of the Committee stage. However, we felt that it would be prudent to seek this resolution tonight. I commend it to the House.

James Clappison: As the Minister rightly said, this is the money resolution for the private Member's Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Sadly, he cannot be present for this debate.
	The Bill will permit the Secretary of State to withhold payments of housing benefit in certain circumstances because of antisocial behaviour. The resolution is concerned with authorising expenditure, and I appreciate that if I were to venture into a debate about the merits and the substance of the Bill you would soon rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, in the light of the Minister's comments, it will be helpful if I point out that we share the Bill's objectives. When it had its Second Reading, it received a general welcome from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition.

John Bercow: A very great man.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the House well knows, my right hon. Friend is also a caring man. No doubt because of his caring nature, he gave the Bill a warm welcome. However, it was not just that. He shares our concern with the problem that the Minister described. The problem of antisocial behaviour affects many of our constituents—it plagues law-abiding and decent people.
	The Minister has adverted to the Bill's history and to the Government's intention to table amendments. It is useful to know that at this stage, but I gently draw the House's and the Minister's attention to the fact that the Bill received its Second Reading on 19 April. We were given to understand that it would go into Committee today. The Minister looks puzzled, but we have received notification of a change of date and that the Bill will go into Committee next Tuesday.
	As of today, the only amendments that have been tabled are those in the names of myself and other Opposition Members. They were tabled a little while ago and we have yet to see any Government amendments. The Bill will go into Committee next Tuesday and Friday is a non-sitting day. Although the Minister has said that the resolution will authorise general expenditure, one would have thought that that point would have been clear when the Bill received its Second Reading. Whether or not that is the case, it is appropriate to consider how such expenditure might arise, and the nature of the amendments is important for that. However, as matters stand, we have not seen the amendments, and we do not know how extensive they will be. We gather from what the Minister said that they could be fairly extensive. We should have the opportunity to table amendments to the Government's proposals. The amendments that we have tabled already are to the Bill as it stands, but we do not know what the Government will propose.
	I shall not venture into the Bill's merits, but the amendments are germane—the Minister accepted this in his remarks—to the money resolution. Although we do not wish to express anything but sympathy for the Bill's aims, we gently draw the Minister's attention to the circumstances facing us and to our wish to give the Bill proper consideration, as is our duty.

Andrew Stunell: Although I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have considerable reservations about the Bill, we think that the resolution is appropriate. The remarks of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the process and procedure leading up to the Committee stage next week enhance my concern that we might end up with a Bill that is less satisfactory than it should be. Nevertheless, we shall not oppose the resolution.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the principle behind the Bill. People who live with neighbours from hell, as they are commonly called, should be afforded protection. However, I want to put down a marker. Housing benefit is paid from money that comes to Northern Ireland from the Treasury. I take it that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have to amend legislation because the measure relates to social legislation, which it covers. I certainly wish the proposal every speed in this place so that we do something to protect good neighbours from those who are bad.

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) rightly emphasised that there is general support on both sides of the House for the principles behind the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested, my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House also supports it. He is renowned for his compassionate and caring approach—

John Bercow: And generosity of spirit.

Paul Goodman: Of course.
	However, the Minister said something that is slightly puzzling and it threatens to disturb the happy consensus across the Floor of the House. The Government have introduced the money resolution but have not tabled amendments to the Bill, which received its Second Reading on 19 April. I understand, however, that its Committee stage has been delayed. The puzzle is that the Government have introduced the money resolution but we do not know what it will apply to because we do not know what the Government amendments will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere is also puzzled by that and was entitled to raise it. We are concerned and disturbed because the puzzle threatens the consensus on a popular and necessary Bill.

Julian Brazier: I have three points to add. First, I want to reinforce the contention that it is impossible to have proper scrutiny if the Government continue to table amendments at the last moment. They did that on the Adoption and Children Bill, which also had widespread support. Those amendments dealt with hugely complicated material. Many of them were welcome, but they were produced at the last minute, just before Report.
	Secondly, I cannot emphasise how strongly I support a money resolution to fund the measure. My surgeries are dominated by the problems caused by antisocial behaviour. Some people may wrongly imagine that Canterbury is a leafy and comfortable part of the world, but it has a great deal of poverty. I would never identify poverty with villainy. Far from it. It is certainly true, however, that poor people suffer from the villainy of antisocial behaviour far more than the better-off. Any measure that tries to address that is welcome.
	Thirdly, the particular merit of the measure, as opposed to almost all the other measures that have been introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour, is that it is specifically civil rather than criminal. The problem with criminal measures to deal with antisocial behaviour is so obvious that it should not be worth explaining. However, hardly anyone has thought it through. As antisocial behaviour is by its very nature—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the money resolution to the Bill.

Julian Brazier: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will inevitably be many disputes between neighbours, and I was merely observing that it is well worth spending the money on a measure that offers a civil route to solving those problems because it does not require the high standard of proof that would be necessary in criminal proceedings.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in welcoming the money resolution. However, I am also disappointed that the Government are frustrating the scrutiny process.

Malcolm Wicks: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate.
	I welcome the support for the measure which has been reiterated in the House this evening. The main emphasis has been on the fact that we are all concerned to tackle antisocial behaviour because it affects so many of our constituents.
	There is no discourtesy to the House in the delay in tabling our amendments. I made it clear on Second Reading that we were sympathetic to the Bill's purpose, but translating it into purposeful policy involved complexities, not least those involving the European convention on human rights. We had to take proper advice about those matters, and it would have been foolish to rush into amendments. I am sorry if the delay has inconvenienced the House, but there are reasons for our need to take careful counsel on the issue. Any amendments will be tabled, and we will be discussing these matters in Committee next week, when I hope we can have a full and frank debate.
	As for Northern Ireland, these matters will be for Northern Ireland itself to decide, and it will need to debate them. We know that they affect people throughout the United Kingdom.
	Again, if Members have been inconvenienced by the fact that amendments have not yet been tabled, I regret that, but this is technical and complex legal territory. We know that rushing into legislation can produce bad social policy, and no one wants that.
	Finally, we discussed fully with the Bill's promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the delay in the Committee proceedings, and of course he agreed that there was a need for that slight delay.
	I hope that after those words, and with the strong feeling among hon. Members that something must be done about this pressing social problem, the House will agree to the money resolution.
	Question put and agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION

Ordered,
	(1) There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Convention, for the consideration of reports from the United Kingdom Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe.
	(2) At any sitting of the standing committee, the chairman may permit the Parliamentary Representatives to make statements on the discharge of their responsibilities, and questions may then be put thereon by Members;
	Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman.
	(3) (a) At the conclusion of proceedings under the preceding paragraph, the committee shall consider only a motion proposed from the chair 'That the committee has considered the report of [date] from the United Kingdom Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe'; and the chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours;
	(b) The chairman shall thereupon report that the committee has considered the report of [date] from the United Kingdom Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe, without putting any further question.
	(4) (a) Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 143) and to the Foreign Affairs Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 152), together with the Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention; and
	(b) Any Member of the House, not being a member of the committee, may participate in the proceedings of the committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
	(5) (a) Alternate Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe who are members of the House of Lords may, if that House thinks fit, make such statements as are mentioned in paragraph (2) of this Order, answer questions thereon, and participate in debate on the motion made under paragraph (3), and
	(b) other members of the House of Lords may participate in the committee's proceedings, but no member of that House may vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Stocksbridge Bypass

Helen Jackson: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the petition of 2,000 of my constituents and others about the dangers of the Stocksbridge bypass, following the tragic deaths of Tom and Kieran Moore which brought the death toll on that road to 24. Subsequently there have been even more deaths.
	The petition states:
	The petitioners request that as a matter of urgency the Minister of State for Transport should implement road improvements which will make the A616 Stocksbridge bypass safer.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOPATHY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

John Bercow: It is my pleasure and privilege to speak tonight on the subject of myalgic encephalopathy. I do so with enthusiasm and commitment, the more so because I know that the debate will be answered by the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). He has had a meteoric but thoroughly deserved rise to office. I wish him well in fulfilling his responsibilities, and in particular I look forward to what he has to say in response to my speech.
	In the House since 1997, interest in ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome, has been manifested in no fewer than 116 written and oral parliamentary questions; a number of early-day motions—three, if I remember correctly, of which the most popular was the one tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) in November 1997, which attracted no fewer than 164 signatures; and several Adjournment debates. Of the latter, two in particular stick in my mind. The first was initiated by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), whom I am pleased to see in his place tonight. The chairman of the all-party ME group, he has devoted himself to the issue with remarkable results, and his conscientiousness has earned him the justified respect of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The other debate was introduced by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who is not able to be with us tonight; he spoke on 6 February this year, to telling effect.
	My motivation is straightforward: the ME Association, which is one of at least six such organisations and does pioneering and appreciated work in the field, recently moved its headquarters from Essex to my Buckingham constituency—a thoroughly judicious choice of location. Its offices are on the Buckingham industrial park. I said that I wanted to support the association in its work, and I meant it. I pay tribute to the efforts of its chairman, Ian Franklin, its new chief executive, Val Hockey, its public relations and communications manager, Tony Britton, and the excellent medical adviser to the association, Dr. Charles Shepherd.
	There has been a long-standing argument about the cause of ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, but about its appalling symptoms and consequences there can be no doubt. Due not least to the work of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, it is now, I am pleased and relieved to be able to say, a clinically diagnosed condition. It is severe and potentially disabling, resulting in muscle and joint pain, sleep disorder, sore throat and enlarged glands, and loss of balance, concentration and memory; it can cause intolerance of food, alcohol and even light. The House and the wider public must understand that ME sufferers experience sheer exhaustion and excruciating pain. Those are often the daily endurance and harrowing ordeals of sufferers, who can be afflicted by the illness at any time of their lives. A quarter of ME sufferers suffer depression as a result of their affliction.

Laurence Robertson: My wife suffers from ME. In addition to the crippling illness and symptoms that my hon. Friend has graphically described, one of the problems that my wife faces is that it is not understood that ME is a disease that often affects highly capable and very active people. I am sure she would want me to emphasise that to the House tonight.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—ME can strike someone at any time of their life and its effects can be variable and unpredictable. People can be well one day, and the next day be incapable of performing the most personal and simple task. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
	It is estimated that there are about 4,000 cases of ME per million of the population. The Effective Health Care bulletin recently speculated, with some authority, that ME sufferers comprise between 0.4 and 2.6 per cent. of the UK population. Millions of days are lost to ME in the workplace each year. The monetary impact is estimated to be about £4 billion. A 1997 study relating to schoolchildren found that ME was the single most common cause of absence from school.
	However, there have been good developments. The establishment of the working group on chronic fatigue syndrome or ME was one such positive development. Set up by the Department of Health in late 1998 and chaired by Professor Allen Hutchinson, director of public health at the school of health and related research at Sheffield university, the working group was given important duties and has discharged them to admirable effect. The working group's terms of reference obliged it
	"to review management and practice in the field of . . . ME with the aim of providing best practice guidance for professionals, patients and carers to improve the quality of care and treatment for people with . . . ME."
	The group produced its findings on 11 January this year in relation to the diagnosis of the disease, its management and its treatment. There were several conclusions, with which the Minister will be broadly familiar. It was concluded that health care professionals should recognise the chronic character of the disease and co-operate with affected parties. Early diagnosis, instead of a third of people having to wait 18 months or more to be diagnosed, is viewed as a priority. There is a crucial imperative for clinical evaluation and follow-up, preferably by multidisciplinary teams. The quality of support from GPs in co-ordinating strategies and then, where necessary, making appropriate referrals to specialists must be part of the mix.
	The focus on domiciliary services should not be ignored either. There is a role for therapeutic strategies. Some of them—cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise—have come to be extremely controversial. That is why many experts think that there should be a new emphasis on pacing, which will require a commitment from Government and other agencies. There is a role for patients in the management and treatment of their condition. There is an overriding need, on which everybody, from whatever side of the argument, agrees, for more research, not least into the physical causes of the affliction. In relation to children, it is thought that care is best co-ordinated by an appropriate specialist—usually a paediatrician.
	I think it is a positive development that that work has been done and that we now have the endorsement of the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, for the proposition that this is a recognised disease. The days in which it was pejoratively and offensively dismissed as yuppie flu, and as something whose resolution required people simply to get their act together, are rapidly being consigned to the dustbin of history.
	I hope, however, that the Minister will understand that I want to put a number of particular questions to him. I do so making it absolutely clear that this matter is not a party political football as far as I am concerned. The Government have done considerable good work on this subject, so I am not cavilling at them, but performing the proper role of a constituency Member of Parliament as well as an Opposition Member in seeking to encourage still greater efforts from the Administration.
	Who is now on the scientific advisory panel established by the Medical Research Council? The chief medical officer and the Government want the MRC to have such an independent panel and to produce a strategy. I think it was originally expected that that strategy would be produced by the end of February. Later, in debates both in the other place and here, it was suggested that we would hear further from the MRC in spring this year. We are now, even by the most elastic definition, into the summer, and a good deal that we had expected has not yet been forthcoming.
	What patient involvement will there be in the work of the MRC? When will its biomedical and health services research strategy be finalised, announced and started? Does the Minister agree with me—and, I suspect, other hon. Members in all parts of the House—that the matter is pressing because too little is known about the aetiology and pathogenesis of ME? What use are the Government making of the ME Association's booklet "ME/CFS/PVFS: An Exploration of the Key Clinical Issues", which is authoritative and is designed to be useful to them in communicating to all the agencies, including general practitioners, good and effective practice?
	What assessment has the Minister made of the levels of primary, secondary and tertiary care, and what plans does he have, on the strength of his few days in his important post, for their improvement? In the light of the fact that another Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), declared at column 1008W on 12 March this year that there was merit in the development of clinical learning networks at local level, can he advise the House whether there has been any progress on that subject? Is it his judgment that such work should be undertaken before, after or concurrently with the formulation of the MRC strategy?
	Has the incapacity benefit handbook for medical service doctors been changed? The Minister will know—if he does not, that is excusable and he will soon be informed about the matter—that there is great anxiety that, in the past, not recognising the disease meant unfairness for sufferers who tried to get the benefits to which most of us now believe they are entitled. Has the handbook been revised? Has the changed decision, the new attitude and the reformed culture been communicated to the people who determine whether sufferers get that to which they are entitled? Is the Minister satisfied that people are getting what they are due?

Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the Adjournment debate. Despite the chief medical officer's deliberations and findings, does not the hon. Gentleman believe that great problems remain locally because some GPs continue to fail to recognise ME as an illness?

John Bercow: I do. I say in no frivolous spirit that I was guilty—I frequently am—of seriously understating my case. I brought a delicacy of touch and natural kindness to bear in my remarks. I should have stated more bluntly that the Government should not only provide advice and communicate the new culture to GPs but put their foot to the backsides of those who have consistently misunderstood and displayed insensitivity towards people suffering badly at a difficult time in their lives. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), whose point of view on the subject I share. Much remains to be done.
	Does the Minister acknowledge that the ME Association is playing its part through funding a major study by Dr. Derek Pheby, director of applied epidemiology at the university of the West of England, under the auspices of the Ramsay Research Fund? It is designed to consider factors that might explain ME that is so chronic that victims become housebound or even bed-bound.
	Will the Minister visit the information centre that the ME Association is developing in my constituency? I do not know how he can resist such a gracious entreaty only days after his appointment. I should be delighted to act as host. He knows from my remarks that the invitation is made in a non-partisan spirit. The issue is too big for political games. I should be delighted to welcome him if his busy schedule permits him to make such a visit at some stage. I know how pleased the ME Association would be.
	Sir Liam Donaldson accepted the conclusions of the working group report on the subject without exception. They represented a milestone. Genuine progress has been made and there is no time to let up. We must not hold back; we need to consolidate and build on the progress. The evil of chronic fatigue syndrome must not be compounded, through errors of commission or omission, by chronic delay syndrome.
	I am pleased to encourage the Minister, who well deserved his promotion as I said earlier, in the work that must follow. I look forward enthusiastically to his reply.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his remarks and I congratulate him on securing the Adjournment debate. It is my first Adjournment debate as a Minister and I am pleased that it is on such an important subject as ME and chronic fatigue syndrome.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned several detailed matters and he will forgive me if I reply to some of his substantive points in writing. However, I hope that most of my comments will tackle the important issues that he raised.
	I welcome the debate, not least because it provides an opportunity for us to state clearly our policy on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME more generally. I want to begin by acknowledging how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to illustrate how debilitating this condition can be for individuals, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) described very clearly the effects of the disease on his wife.
	In January, an independent working group reported on ME. It is quite clear from the report that some patients have found it very difficult to get the treatment and care they need to help them to manage their illness and to make a recovery. We now want to move to a situation in which everyone with ME gets the treatment and care that they need, when and where they need it. I know from my own constituency that not only patients but the voluntary organisations that serve them are anxious that the momentum created by the publication of the independent working group's report should not be lost. I would like to assure hon. Members that we are aware of these anxieties, and I hope to address them in my speech.
	It is fair to say that this is a controversial area, and that many in the field have different views on the nature of this very debilitating complaint. However, harnessing the views of patients, parents, families and carers to underpin the guidance was afforded high priority by the working group. The group aimed to capture views from individuals with special interests or expertise, and from a wider constituency, and to structure that material to reflect the range of opinion.
	On the basis of that opinion, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government endorse the view of the working group that this is a chronic illness. Health and social care professionals should recognise it as such. We welcome the publication of the report as the start of a process of improving awareness and understanding of ME. I acknowledge that the working group was faced with a difficult task. There is widespread uncertainty surrounding this condition, along with disbelief and controversy about its existence, and disagreement about the best way to treat it.
	Four key challenges face clinicians caring for people with ME. First, there are no agreed diagnostic criteria. Diagnosis is often made by eliminating other conditions through a series of tests. There is agreement, however, that overwhelming fatigue is one symptom that characterises ME. There is a continuing debate about which other factors should be taken into account when making a diagnosis.
	Secondly, we do not currently know the cause of ME, although there are many theories about that. Research has demonstrated immune, musculoskeletal and neurological abnormalities, and shown that physical, psychological and other factors are interrelated and all play a role. Thirdly, there is no one form of treatment to suit every patient, but treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms that individuals can experience is a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients.
	Finally, we are aware that there is controversy about some of the approaches used for managing ME. It is clear that the task ahead is to ask all the stakeholders in this field to work together to establish what treatment, or combination of treatments, will best help patients to get better, or at least relieve their symptoms.
	The potential to develop service networks between the various stages of care—tertiary, secondary and primary—alongside primary care trusts and strategic health authorities is also important. This would improve access to the skills, experience and resources of secondary and tertiary centres, and incorporate the principles of shared care.
	The report was not intended to be a comprehensive clinical guideline, and has not been developed as such. A referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide guidance on management and treatment is being considered. Thought needs to be given to what is the most appropriate clinical tool for helping patients with this condition.
	An audit, a referral protocol or a guideline might best meets the needs of patients with ME. These matters need to be discussed in some detail with the national institute. It would be better to consider all the evidence, rather than to rush in and create a guideline that may turn out to be wrong in the short term.

Anthony D Wright: I take on board the point that the Minister has just made about referral to NICE. Is he aware that such a referral sometimes takes up to two years? The length of time that it sometimes takes to come to the working group is too long. We need to speed up the process. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the issue, will he give a commitment to consider that problem, and to try to deal with it as a matter of urgency?

David Lammy: As a new Minister, I shall of course give a commitment to consider that issue. This is a complicated area. The report is substantial and makes serious recommendations. The consultation with NICE is being considered at the moment, and I hope that in due course I can come back to my hon. Friend with some conclusions about where we are at now.
	We will also ensure that the external reference groups that will develop the two national service frameworks for children's services and adults with long-term conditions consider this report and its recommendations for improving treatment and care.
	Within those frameworks, ME may not be considered as a specific condition. However, the NSFs will address some of the generic issues affecting the management of illness in childhood and adolescence and long-term medical conditions in adults. NSFs set standards for treatment and care, and support health and social care professionals in the delivery of high quality services.
	I want to address some of the points that the hon. Member for Buckingham raised. He referred to the Medical Research Council. I understand that earlier today senior members of the MRC appeared before the all-party parliamentary group on ME. They described the process that the MRC is using to develop a research strategy for ME.
	Hon. Members will recall that, following the publication of the independent working party report on ME, the Department of Health asked the MRC to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME. The MRC has now assembled a small group to develop this research strategy. The group comprises individuals who are not active in the CFS field but have the requisite scientific expertise. They will be joined by lay members drawn from the MRC consumer liaison group and others to take this issue forward.
	The proposed terms of reference for the group are to consider the report of the working party on ME, including its recommendations for research; to consider other recent reviews—the hon. Gentleman referred to one—of the current knowledge and understanding of ME; to take account of patient and lay perspectives; to recommend a research strategy to advance understanding of the epidemiology and biology of ME; and in the light of current knowledge to suggest what areas of further research are needed with regard to possible treatments.
	I understand that the MRC hopes to conclude the process by the end of the year, but it recognises that the consultation steps may require slightly more time than previously anticipated. The MRC considers it vital that the process is not rushed. I can provide the hon. Gentleman with a list of the membership of that group if he so wishes.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of benefits for ME sufferers, and I realise that that is a sensitive area. The Department for Work and Pensions recognises that ME is a debilitating illness. However, entitlement to benefit is dependent not on claimants having any particular diagnosis, but on their care and mobility needs in the case of disability living allowance or on the illness's effect on their ability to perform prescribed work-related functions in their assessment.

Laurence Robertson: May I stress that ME can lead to a patient being unable to walk?

David Lammy: I am sympathetic, and assessments are made relating to such factors as mobility. The hon. Gentleman may be aware, however—I know this from the report, which I have with me and which I read at some length in the Library earlier today—that there is a spectrum of diagnosis. It is therefore right for a proper benefit analysis to be made, and for full account to be taken of the variety of debilitating effects that the disease can have.
	Clinicians face challenges, and we agree that the working group has provided an evidence base from which to start. We fully support the need for more research on a wide range of aspects of ME, and we have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a strategy; I have mentioned the terms of reference. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments—that Governments should not prescribe the details of what research councils should do. The Department is considering the benefit aspects in depth, but benefit will rather depend on the spectrum of complaints that an individual may have.

John Bercow: I understand the Minister's point of view, but does he accept that, historically, the bias of research projects has tended to be towards psychiatric explanations of the disease rather than its physical causes?

David Lammy: I think it would be wrong for me to comment on the science of what is a complex disease. I am not a physician. We have a working report, which is being studied.
	As I have said, there are many views on this complex complaint. What is important is that the Government take it seriously, that clinicians, general practitioners, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities—among others—take it seriously, and that consultation takes place with NICE. I hope to return to the hon. Gentleman in due course with news of that. Moreover, the Medical Research Council is engaged in a strategic study of the issues.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.